FarCryss wrote:Uh, what's your beef with subtitles? Does it have to do with things being lost in translation, or do you just dislike reading while watching a movie?
Both but mostly the latter. I dislike it because it takes your eyes away from what's going on on the screen, sometimes flashing it so fast you don't even get a chance to look up. It's particularly troubling with dramatic, rapid fire dialogue and interferes with comedic timing. The best I've seen it done was with
Slumdog Millionaire where they put the subtitles up on the screen just off from the main point of focus. I don't see why people think subbing is better than dubbing which could certainly be done much better than the out-of-sync examples we're all familiar with. I've actually seen some argue that subbing doesn't interfere with the actors nuances. The nuances are there to see with dubbing, but are often missed with subbing. And if the nuance involves a play on words in a foreign language that can't be translated, it's lost in either case. (Ultimately, the problem is different languages so the solution is for everybody learn English.
) On the serious side, if I lived in Italy, lets say, as much as I like movies and with all the English language films out there, I'd make a point of learning it. And I could increase my learning by watching those movies.
There's no evidence I can point to, but I suspect that around the world dubbing is greatly preferred by non-English speaking patrons, Europe having the lowest preference for dubbing. Also, subtitles have acquired a long-standing degree of art house, purist snob appeal for the same reasons behind all unjustified arrogance--in this case because you don't have to be able to read to understand dubbing. Ergo, if you prefer subtitles, you're proving your superior to the illiterate, and by association, those who share that preference.