|
 |
Someone with absurd views on language learning | ||
Share with:
| ||
 Language Learning Forum : General discussion |  | |
| Kveldulv Senior Member Italy Joined 6955 days ago 222 posts - 244 votes  1 sounds Speaks: Italian* | Message 25 of 33 25 January 2010 at 8:12pm | IP Logged | ||
Apparently because it's cheaper and quicker, especially if you are working under pressure to meet a deadline. It is distracting in the beginning, but after a while it doesn't bother at all (if well done). Maybe great movies like Apocalypse Now, Pulp Fiction and series like Dexter, The Shield and so on deserve better. They surely deserve a proper translation, and I'm not talking about voice-over vs full dubbing. It doesn't matter that much. Watch Platoon, Pulp Fiction, South Park, Bad Santa... in English and then in Russian, and see how much is lost in television translation. But we are lucky, someone is working to let us fully enjoy them: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rciQhuOTyp4&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdQF4aXXdGE Edited by Kveldulv on 25 January 2010 at 8:42pm 1 person has voted this message useful | |||
| Siberiano Tetraglot Senior Member Russian Federation one-giant-leap.Registered users can see my Skype Name Joined 6495 days ago 465 posts - 696 votes Speaks: Russian*, English, ItalianC1, Spanish Studies: Portuguese, Serbian | Message 26 of 33 25 January 2010 at 9:04pm | IP Logged | ||
I can say there's the same relation between actors and singers: watch the 1970s Jesus Christ Super Star movie, enjoy the acting and the play of voices. Then listen to the album, the "singers' version", and note the difference: the singers do have voices of great ranges and a lot of power, and can take high notes, but in the moments when they have to play "emotions", all you hear is something similar to cat shout. Edited by Siberiano on 25 January 2010 at 9:34pm 1 person has voted this message useful | |||
| cordelia0507 Senior Member United Kingdom Joined 5840 days ago 1473 posts - 2176 votes Speaks: Swedish* Studies: German, Russian | Message 27 of 33 25 January 2010 at 9:25pm | IP Logged | ||
|
Ok, but I think the French/German/Spanish method is better, i.e. use real actors for the dubbing. If that's not a possibility I'd prefer subtitles.
Ideally, countries should make their own programmes and not import so much. Then dubbing isn't necessary at all! Or at least import from their neighbours instead of across half the world. But that's a different debate. 3 persons have voted this message useful | |||
| Siberiano Tetraglot Senior Member Russian Federation one-giant-leap.Registered users can see my Skype Name Joined 6495 days ago 465 posts - 696 votes Speaks: Russian*, English, ItalianC1, Spanish Studies: Portuguese, Serbian | Message 28 of 33 25 January 2010 at 9:27pm | IP Logged | ||
Sure, actors are a whole different story. This was a strandard thing in USSR, but then, first there was the cost/benefit issue, and now sometimes I even see Russian movies with studio robots speaking instead of those who act on the screen (maybe they're not professional actors, and that's why studios decide to "improve" their voices, but to my ears this is like chewing a piece of paper). Apparently, after some time without good dubbing the bear stepped on too many people's ears (= many people got no ear) I remember watching Fantomas movies in the end of 90's, that were dubbed back in 70's. That was the time I noted the difference. Recently I watched some old foreign movies that by luck were dubbed in USSR by actos. What a pleasure! I have no words! Edited by Siberiano on 25 January 2010 at 9:45pm 1 person has voted this message useful | |||
 Iversen Super Polyglot Moderator Denmark berejst.dk Joined 6705 days ago 9078 posts - 16473 votes Speaks: Danish*, French, English, German, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, Swedish, Esperanto, Romanian, Catalan Studies: Afrikaans, Greek, Norwegian, Russian, Serbian, Icelandic, Latin, Irish, Lowland Scots, Indonesian, Polish, Croatian Personal Language Map | Message 29 of 33 26 January 2010 at 1:58am | IP Logged | ||
|
I simply hate listening to two voices speaking at the same time, - especially if I understand both languages. I mostly watch documentaries, and there actors are not really necessary (especially not if they try to act!) - a simple no-frills reading will usually be sufficient. That can't be too expensive! But leaving the background voice on totally spoils the program, and then I mostly find something else to watch. Edited by Iversen on 28 January 2010 at 10:22am 1 person has voted this message useful | |||
| Sennin Senior Member Bulgaria Joined 6036 days ago 1457 posts - 1759 votes 5 sounds | Message 30 of 33 27 January 2010 at 2:55pm | IP Logged | ||
It's mega-distracting, I can't stand it either. ;) 1 person has voted this message useful | |||
| cordelia0507 Senior Member United Kingdom Joined 5840 days ago 1473 posts - 2176 votes Speaks: Swedish* Studies: German, Russian | Message 31 of 33 27 January 2010 at 4:16pm | IP Logged | ||
|
When I was a kid in Sweden that type of voice-over dubbing was used for the kids programmes, because the kids can't read subtitles. (school starts at 7 in Sweden).
Subtitles only are used for adult/teenage material, from 9 or so. This kind of dubbing can help a linguistically gifted child to pick up vocabulary in other languages. Some of the languages where totally incomprehensible (to us) Slavic languages, but there were also many German programmes, and occassionally English. These could be "deciphered". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJHdyBTT-cw I agree with Siberiano's view about quality of some of the film work from the USSR era. Even regular films from this era are actually a bit easier to watch for a learner of Russian because the actors speak much more clearly than in modern films. It is very noticeable. I read a comment that this was because all the film/TV actors were all classically trained in those days, and that they also worked at the theatre when they were not filming. Perhaps this makes the speech sound less natural / realistic to a native speaker, but for a learner it is is great. 1 person has voted this message useful | |||
| zooplah Diglot Senior Member United States zooplah.farvista.net Joined 6370 days ago 100 posts - 116 votes Speaks: English*, Esperanto Studies: German | Message 32 of 33 01 February 2010 at 6:10pm | IP Logged | ||
I don't even know what sedulous and clavicle mean in English. I could look them up, but I'd forget them by the next time I encountered them (if ever). Mercurial and phlegmatic are just adjectives derived from Mercury and phlegm. The way I see it is if you grasp enough of the grammar and vocabulary to be easily understood and can easily understand, at least from context, most of the language, you're fluent. 1 person has voted this message useful |
|  | 
Printable version
|
| Copyright 2024 FX Micheloud - All rights reserved No part of this website may be copied by any means without my written authorization. |
