I call shenanigans. TRM is being way too cagey in his responses to be sincere. Three pages in and he still hasn't named a dub as good as the original, and each new post just raises new questions regarding, for example, the languages he speaks and the non-English boards he visits. Perhaps you should stop feeding him, Jay G.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but it seems like this comment . . .

. . . is being misread. The first time I saw it, I read it as:

I think he's referring to the everyone he's read who saw the film and also enjoyed it, not just everyone who saw the movie. Big difference, but perhaps commas would have been more helpful for some folks, if grammatically unnecessary.

The rest is making my eyes bleed, but I think TRM's being more balanced in regards to this issue than a couple of you folks are giving him credit for, though it's all kind of lost now . . .

You are wrong. I read it to mean the same thing you thought, although far be it for me to suggest that those who hated the film can't still talk strongly about it.

If so, then I don't understand your response at the top of this page accusing TRM of speaking definitively about everyone who's seen the film when you understand that he wasn't.

. . .

Sounds fine. What's this in response to, though?


.

If you've ever taken an English-language movie and listened to even a moment of one of the foreign language tracks, then you can easily see how ludicrous and bad the result is when the actors voices are removed and replaced by faceless actors in a room. I speak Spanish and have switched over to the Spanish track just to hear the dubbers voices. Unbelievably awful. There is no comparison.

It's like tracing over a great painting with spray paint.

This is one issue on which American audiences seem to be more sophisticated than foreign audiences who pretty much only watch American movies dubbed.

He said that his friends could talk as strongly about it as "anyone else" who had seen and enjoyed it in the original Korean language, which means he was talking about everyone else who's seen and enjoyed the film in the Korean language. Obviously, he hasn't met or tested everyone else who's seen the film to see if this is true, so he's making a presumptive and unprovable statement, unless you think it's actually possible for someone to track down and ask everyone who's seen the film to talk about it and then judge comparatively to his friends.

He can't even definitively say that his friends can talk about it as strongly as if they had seen the film in Korean for their first viewing, since there's no way to test his friend's reaction in this alternate circumstance.

It's also extremely anecdotal. He tested some friends, which means they likely share some sensibilities with himself, otherwise they wouldn't be friends. As friends, they're also not completely likely to give a full and honest opinion, due to the friendship.

The idea that "they would talk about it as strongly as anyone who saw the Korean version with English subtitles, and enjoyed it that way." suggests that people who didn't enjoy the film, either dubbed or in the original language, couldn't talk strongly about it. Even if someone saw the film and hated it, they could probably still talk strongly about it.

Interesting. I didn't realize he was making a statement of scientific fact. Certainly it reads like an anecdote to me. But is it really that unconscionable, even offensive, to imagine someone liking the film in English as much as someone who liked the film in Korean? Certainly the experience is somewhat different between the two, but it is possible . . .

I assumed that, in his opinion, his friends' affinity for the film that he showed them rivals that of those who saw it and liked it in its native tongue. Of course that's subjective, but it's not exactly impossible. But it needs to be verifiable before someone can say it in an internet forum? He's talking about two camps of people who simply liked the film. Those who hated it for whatever reason are irrelevant in this context (and apparently buried between the lines, because I certainly don't take such inference from such a straightforward comment).

I suppose a thread like this was bound to be sidetracked by people who abhor dubbing, rather than someone who sees the pros and cons of the craft itself (and, yes, it is a craft). Now that would have been an interesting discussion, but providing examples in the current context is a fool's game.

Besides, I actually prefer (and choose) the original language whenever possible, largely because it feels intuitive, but I've heard dubs that showed a remarkable (and admittedly rare) attention to linguistic accuracy, performance, and cultural translation. They do exist. And if such dubbing at least enables more people who wouldn't normally do so to see cinema from outside their own cultural bubbles, more kudos to the dubbers. I don't need their work, but I can at least appreciate it when they do it well, and scoff when they do it poorly.

It is possible, like almost anything is possible, the problem is that it's not provable. He wasn't "imagining" that his friends appreciated the film as well as the fiercest fan of the original language version, he stated it as being true.

I'm not sure what you mean here. If you mean people he's comparing with people he personally knows that saw it originally in its native tongue, he never made that clear that was the case. In fact, from what he's stated, it's not clear if he personally knows anyone who saw it first in Korean.

Except the two camps are widely uneven. One camp is his small group of friends, the other camp is everyone else who saw the film in the original language with subtitles, and he was comparing with definitiveness.

That was just a tongue-in-cheek comment, made for humorous effect, hence the wink. I never was seriously critical of him, or anyone else, excluding people who disliked the film from the discussion.

Colorization is a craft. 4:3 reframing is a craft. Re-editing a film is a craft. All have pros and cons. A lot of people oppose these alterations on principle, regardless of the relative quality of a given alteration, because they want to see the film as close as possible to how it was originally meant to be seen. It's not close-minded, it's standing on principle.

Now, I've already given an example of a dub that I thought was at least as good as the original track. I'm open to the possibility of dubs that are better than the original track existing. However, the supposed promoters of dubs on this thread so far have been unable to provide an example, even though TRM insists they exist, in his opinion.

I've never doubted they exist, and I've in fact acknowledged that they do exist. Quality 4:3 reframings exist too, and someday completely realistic colorizations may exist. That doesn't mean I'm going to want to watch those versions over the original.

You can argue the same for 4:3 reframings, colorizations, and re-redits of films as well. To paraphrase you:

"And if such 4:3 reframing at least enables more people who wouldn't normally do so to see cinema from outside their own cultural bubbles, more kudos to the reframers."

"And if such colorization at least enables more people who wouldn't normally do so to see cinema from outside their own cultural bubbles, more kudos to the colorists."

"And if such editing of content at least enables more people who wouldn't normally do so to see cinema from outside their own cultural bubbles, more kudos to the editors."

If you're supportive of dubbing because it appeals to the masses, you have to be supportive of all other forms of alterations that are done for the same reason.

No I don't.

And how would 4:3 reformatting, colorizing or censoring a foreign film make it more appealing to potentially adventurous viewers who don't prefer to read subtitles? Resizing a foreign film doesn't make it any less foreign to a viewer. Colorizing a film doesn't make it any less foreign to a viewer. Censoring certainly doesn't make a film any less foreign to a viewer. Dubbing at least gives them the option to enjoy the film (and its visuals) in a familiar tongue. The visuals remain the same, at least on more contemporary releases like OLD BOY. And the original audio should always be present for those of us who prefer it.


He doesn't have to know them. He could have just read them all over the internet if he chose to (and he may have for all we know), not unlike the rest of us.

But hey . . . to each his own.

.

They wouldn't. They would appeal to "potentially adventurous viewers" who don't prefer to see a reduced image surrounded by black bars, don't prefer to watch black and white films, or don't prefer certain types of scenes in movies. Again, your reasoning was that dubbing is good because it reaches audiences that wouldn't otherwise watch the film in its unaltered form, which is the same reasoning for making 4:3, colorized, or edited versions.

You're hypothesizing something not evident in his writings. If he was talking about a specific subgroup (even if that subgroup was "people I know" or "people I've read online"), he should've specified. Instead he wrote as if his statement was true for all people that have seen the film in its original language with subtitles.

For example, If I said "my friend can swim better than anyone else who's been in a pool," you'd assume I'm claiming he's faster than anyone else, i.e. everyone else. It doesn't matter if I really meant "my friend can swim faster than those two other guys I know," or "my friend can swim faster than that one guy I read about," because that's not what I wrote. What was written was wrong, and while it can be later corrected, it can't be later made correct through retroactive rationalization.

Not only it does but there is an expansive history on how it is done. Particularly as far as the South Korean market is concerned (seeing that it has been debated in this thread).

I am assuming you are aware of how Malena was handled in South Korea?

Pro-B

I must confess that MALENA wasn't a movie that piqued my interest, though I do recall reading something about an uncensored version with optional "fuzzing" or some such that was included with only one of the subtitle tracks (did I read that here?). Presumably this was the Korean edition? More importantly, is this just an isolated example, or is the country known as a hotspot for uncut international cinema on DVD. My collection of domestic Korean films on DVD numbers just under 300 (in part due to my girlfriend), but I must admit I don't have many (any?) of their releases of non-Korean titles outside of a few old Hitchcocks which turned out to be Criterion ports illegally manufactured and sold by a legit Korean distributor that hadn't properly licenced them. Go figure.

Still, how exactly does Malena being uncut make the film less foreign to a foreign audience? Probably makes it better, but it's still a foreign film beyond it's own borders, and without a Korean audio track (in this case) it will still sound like one too, at least to many Koreans. Presumably the Koreans who bought or rented that release were comfortable with watching the film in its native tongue and in the way it was intended to be seen. I'd like to think that that's a majority of the Koreans who actually purchased or rented the title, but even then, who's to say how many of those viewers would have opted to watch the film with a Korean dub track enabled were such a thing made available? We can never know, and it might be an odd melding of faces and voices, but it's likely there'd be a few who would choose such an option.

Censorship does not make a film less foreign to a viewer. Censorship can make a film less appealing (if it's cut), or more appealing (if it's uncut), especially to purists, but it doesn't make it less foreign to cultures outside of the one that created it. It just is what it is. Colorization and screen reformatting don't make foreign films less foreign, either. Dubbing doesn't necessarily make a foreign film less foreign either, but it at least provides an option (it's just an option, people) for those who prefer to watch foreign cinema without subtitles. And in that regard, it's still the lesser of the four evils brought up here because it rarely (these days) compromises the visual structure of the film in the way the other three have to by their very nature.

And believe it or not, if asked, I'll always recommend original language over dubbed if both are available on a disc. But once again, that doesn't mean I can't appreciate the technical qualities of a dub track when it's done well, as well as it's purpose and function for people who are not me. That's really my only point, and I needn't defend it after this post because it's as valid as any "anti" comments being made here.

Oh, and Jay G, my reasoning was that dubbing was a good option--i.e. to be made available on disc alongside original audio tracks-- rather than just plain "good" all around and in every single instance (Did I really say that?? Sincerest apologies to everyone!). The other three are not good options because they compromise the original image, and the unadulterated verions are not always, and not easily, included on the same disc as an alternative (perhaps in the days of P&S/WS flipper discs, but not so much these days). Having an additional audio track rarely does harm to the visual integrity of contemporary films. Any perceived harm done to the aural integrity can be (and certainly SHOULD be) easily rectified by hitting the audio button on the remote.

And by the way, once again, I PREFER original languages whenever possible.

I am a bit late to the discussion here, but as I usually state my feelings is that dubbing robs the film of the emotions of the original actor's performances. As a general rule I never watch a dubbed live-action movie (Animation is different, but I prefer original language there as well).

I do have an answer to the biggest question of the thread, "Has there ever been an English dub of a live-action movie that's better than the original?" The answer is yes, and the movie is called What's Up Tiger Lily?

Well, I certainly wouldn't advocate replacing an original audio track, but I have no problem including any secondary dubbed tracks. I have NO problem with dubbing as I've stated. I think the original point in question on this thread was whether or not a dub could be AS good as the original language track. Its all subjective either way but I'd say its improbable...but they can CERTAINLY be done well. I do not speak any language but English so I can't comment accurately about an acting in another language. I've always found reading subtitles distracting; you are missing a great deal of the film when you are reading constantly.

So true. That's the main reason I listen to the original soundtracks each and every time they're available (big screen or small screen). You just can't top the original language of the performers. A well-performed, technically adept dub track can only hope to approach what the original track has achieved. And when it's done well, it's an acceptable circumstantial substitute, though never a full-on replacement. This is why having a dub track as the only option on any DVD of a foreign film (wherever you live) is unacceptable in this day and age (and thankfully, rarely happens on newer titles). However, like "Carcosa", I have no problem whatsoever with BOTH being made available on a DVD so that people--newcomers and cineastes alike--are given a choice that doesn't compromise the visual integrity of the film, and a choice to switch over to the original audio track if they begin to feel the aural integrity is being compromised as well. Again, this is by far the least harmful alteration of the four that have been bandied about in this discussion (if one has to alter a film at all, of course), because in the majority of situations involving contemporary films (and even some older ones) we're given the option of both. It's too bad this discussion became about pressuring people into naming dubs that are provably superior to original audio (which is indeed unlikely) rather than discussing dubs that, in and of themselves, are technically sound and professionally, effectively performed. They're rare, but they're out there.

The problem with Korean Malena DVD was that for those watching the disc with Korean subtitles on, some of the nudity is blurred out:
http://forum.dvdtalk.com/showthread.php?t=463027

I imagine Carcosa was using this as an example where a film was altered to meet the sensibilities of the target audience, i.e. the general prudishness of Korean culture.

Aside from straight up censorship, I recall that when the recent Casino Royale was released in China, a line was cut where M refers to the Cold War. Apparently the Chinese censors didn't appreciate it.

Then there's the alternate cut of Pearl Harbor that was released in Japan, changing certain aspects of the film so as to be more appealing to a Japanese audience:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0213149/alternateversions

Of course, There's also the alternate versions of Kill Bill that director Tarantino himself made, apparently in reflection of the different sensibilities of Japanese and American audiences.


So you put a much lower priority on the audio structure of a film? You'd be for soundtrack remixes that add/alter sound effects and music because at least the visual structure of the film is intact? For me, film is both a visual and audio medium, and both are important.


Full-Frame is often available as an option as well, as is colorization, sometimes on a separate disc or release. That doesn't stop people here from complaining about them, especially since as long as they exist there will be people who expect them to. And studios will occasionally pander to only the lowest-common denominator, releasing some films only in full-frame, or with only a dub track.

The question is, to what extent should a film be expected to present altered versions of itself to make it more palatable to different audiences? At what point is the film no longer the film that was intended to be seen? Is it better to expose someone to a creatively compromised version if they prefer it that way, or should the viewer instead see the film the way it was meant to be seen if they want to see it at all?

The audio integrity is always compromised by a dub, by definition.

Well, I can only say that I don't see any compromise at all if the dub is a secondary track and not the only track. I agree that is a not prefered over the original. But do I wish that Pan's Labyrinth had an English dub that I could listen to? You bet. But I would never advocate that being the main option. Sorry, but I like to view films in English. I suspect I'm not in the majority here but thats OK. I don't mind.

One could even make an argument that subtitles are taking away from and compromising one's experience of the film, since you are spending a great deal of time reading and not actually watching the film itself.

I liked What's Up Tiger Lilly over the original International Secret Police: Key of Keys. The Allen dub wins HANDS DOWN.

-beebs

Well said!

Subtitles definitely are an alteration of the film, and the translation included in the subtitles is a compromise of differences in language along with the length of time they have to be shown.

However, the vast majority of opinion is that subtitles are less intrusive and reductive in quality than a dub of comparable translation quality is. It retains the original visual and audio information, while adding a visual translation for those that need it.

Foreign language films obviously need some form of translation for an audience of a different language. However, with subtitles already providing a reasonable and far less intrusive option, dubs really shouldn't be necessary.

I like dubs on Chinese comedy flicks and Italian Horror movies. Otherwise its all about the subs.

Of course, this dub doesn't even pretend to be faithful to the original soundtrack, and alters it so much that it becomes de facto a completely different film.

There's nothing inherently wrong with altering someone else's work. Steve Martin used old film clips hilariously in Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid. MST3K would famously edit and add commentary to what were deemed "bad" films. However, none of these alterations pretend to be the same film as the original, which is what most people feel dubs attempt to do.

It's all about the money. How many movies can afford quality actors to dub and the budget to get the "perfect" take to match the original performance?