Olivergbyrne, sorry but I don't agree to disagree. You must understand your mistake!
I take that, being on moviechat, you are a film buff.
As such, I MUST try to make you see how wrong it is to buy into this mere industrial protectionist propaganda: movies are a visual experience. You are watching it, and your eyes should be looking at the pictures. That's what any director intended for any movie ever made. There's NO director that thinks "hey, let me go light on content here because people are gonna be busy reading the subtitles".
So it's clear that subtitles are just a "solution" to not understanding the dialogue.
If there were no other solutions, I would tell you "I agree with you" but in reality there are other solutions, like translations (eg Colette) or like dubbing (like in ANY other movies in the planet except for english speaking protectorates).
Nobody is saying that french speak english in Colette, it's just so we understand.
These other soultions are objectively better for the viewer. How on earth an actor talking gibberish to you makes the scene better than having a dubber interpret the same scene so you can understand it?
Also it's better for the dialogues: do you have an idea how many words are skipped or cramped together with two lines of subtitles when translating from another language?
It's a fact that most of the planet watches mainstream movies, Hollywood movies, dubbed.
And has no problem with it. And hates subtitles. And Hollywood agrees with this.
Why do you think Hollywood wants you to watch FOREIGN movies in the original language and boycotts any form of dubbing, but is totally fine with their movies being dubbed for most of its audience?
Because they know that dubbing is superior, and want to keep their top spot by boycotting any foreign production chances.
Look, if I understand the language, I prefer the original language. But I only speak two languages. For the rest, dubbing/translating is the best choice, as you say with animation.
reply
share