Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Do Sub-titles Make A Difference?

This is topic Do Sub-titles Make A Difference? in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=000499

Posted by Kristin Wahlund (Member # 922) on 10-13-2001, 11:58 PM:

With the new movie Iron Monkey out, I have recieved a lot of complaints on movies with sub-titles. People wanting refunds because it was advertized and it gave no indication of having subtitles. I also recieved many irate customers on the phone asking if it had sub-titles. They then gave me a very strong opinion of those movies. So I was wondering, does it make a difference for you to see that movie and/or what is your opinion of those foriegn flicks?

------------------
Kristin Wahlund
Regal Cinemas
Eagan 16, MN

Posted by Ken Lackner (Member # 1002) on 10-14-2001, 12:18 AM:

People get irate over the dumbest things these days. I can see why someone would be anoyed, though, because it is anoying traying to read the subtitles and concentrate on the movie at the same time. Sometimes they go by pretty fast. Is the whole film sub-titled? My theatre didn't get it.

Being a projectionist, what pisses me off is when foreign films, especially when they have subtitles, that are filmed in the 1.66:1 aspect ratio are shown in the standard Flat (1.85:1) ratio. Too often the subtitles get cut off, and if you raise the framing enough, the heads get cut off. That possibly could be what they are complaining about, if they know it has been a problem in the past. My last theatre was an art house, so we would occationaly get 1.66 prints.

Posted by Phil Connolly (Member # 465) on 10-14-2001, 03:04 AM:

Still, 9 times out 10 subtitles are far better than having the sound track dubbed into English. I'd always much rarther hear the original performance from the actors even if I can't speak the language.

Of course there are many cinema goers in the English speaking world who get angry with foriegn filmmakers for making films in their own language.

On side note the UK trailers for 'Amilie' and 'Crouching tiger hidden dragon' don't have any dialogue - obviously a bit of a scam to try and prevent frightening off cinema goers who can't read.

Posted by James R. Hammonds, Jr (Member # 673) on 10-14-2001, 04:26 AM:

movies should never be dubbed.

ever.

unless its a kids cartoon.
if people cant learn to doel with subtitles, then they shouldnt be trying to watch the film.

i dont find subtitles annoying at all unless they are white and presented over a light scene which makes them hard to read.

dubbing should be illegal.

ok, maybe im going too far with that one, but people need to realize that americans are not the only ones who make films and english is not the only language spoken in this world.

Posted by Don Sneed (Member # 955) on 10-14-2001, 04:58 AM:

Every movie that is not Japanese is sub-title over here in Japan, what is funny to me is most of the people do not understand english, but loves American movies, all is sub-title....my future wife speaks & understand a little english, but loves going to the theatre with me to see a movie, although she has to read & still see the action, But thank goodness for sub-titles over here & American movies in english, it is what keeps us in business here & myself sane, since there is no english TV in most of the Hotels I stay at, When I service a few theatres in Houston that showed Chinese movies I would watch the feature before I could do my thing in the booth, I found it annoying to read & watch what was going on, on the screen...but that was with the old slope theatres, with stadium seating now, it may be a little easier to read & watch...Sometimes Sub-titles is a good thing !!

Posted by German Marin (Member # 918) on 10-14-2001, 05:00 AM:

I'm from a spanish country and all the movies has sub-titles. The problem with sub-titles is the meaning i.e. in english someone said a joke but in spanish has not sense, i think when people traslate it to sub-titles they do the best is possible. Another problem is while customers is reading sub-titles they can't see the movie 'cause they prefer follows the history. There's one benefit: the movie never is out frame (when it's flat), just put the sub-titles rising botton of screen

Posted by Glenda Cockrum (Member # 542) on 10-14-2001, 10:01 AM:

I don't have any problem with customers with sub-titles, but I do make it clear on my announcement tape that the movie has sub-titles, and post a note on the box office window stating the movie has sub-titles, and on the poster case! If they haven't picked up on it by the time they get inside....!
By the way, by the end of our run of "Life is Beautiful" my (then 9 years old) daughter was speaking some Italian, and actually seems to have retained some words, because she could see and hear at the same time. An Italian customer said to me that her ( my daughter) accent was very good! This was one movie that I felt was important for my children ( ages now 11-18 )to see. Maybe I should start a thread with movies that you feel are important enough in content for children/teens to be encouraged to see?

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 10-14-2001, 10:49 AM:

As a rule, I usually like sub-titles (as opposed to dubbing.) However, in the case of IRON MONKEY, the film definitely looked post-dubbed anyway and some of the more intense action scenes had the unfortunate effect of losing the thread of scene while one looked below to read what was being said.

That said, no one in the audience seemed to groan or get up to complain (although this was a TINY audience). THere was no mention at this theatre that it was sub-titled). Another theatre in town that showed Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon verbally told all ticket-buyers that the film was in Mandarin Chinese with English sub-titles and definitely did turn away some people from that.

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 10-14-2001, 12:39 PM:

Ok, when it comes to action films like Iron Monkey I would rather the film be dubbed....however,I have no problems with a film like Das Boot being subtitled...the action is more involved with the surroundings....Another thing to remember and I hate to say it but some people just can not read well enough to keep up with the subtitles.

Posted by Charles Everett (Member # 889) on 10-14-2001, 01:05 PM:

Subtitles don't make any difference if you're in an arthouse or upmarket venue. The audience comes to expect them and pays attention to what's on screen.

It's a different story in mainstream theaters. Take away Crouching Tiger or Life Is Beautiful -- both of which were "Oscar Bait" -- and subtitled product doesn't do well. On the other hand Life Is Beautiful flopped when it was re-released in a dubbed version.

Ken L: The current arthouse hit Together (from Sweden) was shot in 1.66 with the action framed to fit 1.85. The producers and director must have done that with an eye to international sales. Where I saw Together -- at a stadium theater in upstate New York -- the subtitles were properly positioned for R1, drifted downward for R2 through R5, and got chopped off at the start of R6. A woman in the audience had to go out to tell the staff to adjust the framing so the subtitles would be visible.

Phil C: The trailer for Iron Monkey has no dialogue either.

Posted by Ken Lackner (Member # 1002) on 10-14-2001, 02:17 PM:

What do you mean it was shot in 1:66 and framed to fit 1:85?

Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 10-14-2001, 02:34 PM:

We run a five screen art house. Yes we almost always have a subtitled film on screen. This week we have three films with subtitles, Bread & Tulips which is in Italian, Together which is in Swedish, and Come Undone which is in French. What suprises me is that several of our regular customers still complain when a film is subtitled. I just tell them that it's our bread and butter.

Rialto Cinemas Lakeside; "Bringing the best films in the world to Sonoma County." And yes some of the best films in the world aren't in English!

Posted by Bruce McGee (Member # 131) on 10-14-2001, 03:27 PM:

I've never had a problem with subtitles. I saw the original Diabolique in French and subtitles, and it scared me to death. La Cage Aux Folles is also better in French than dubbed in English.

When working in TV, I ran a load of Mexican horror movies that had the worst dubbing that K. Gordon Murray could produce. Some of the make-up in these films was outstanding, but the dialogue ruined everything.

Then there are those awful "Godzilla" movie dubs.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-14-2001, 06:40 PM:

I prefer to watch movies in English if they were made in English. But I usually find the dialog much more fitting and well acted in their native laguage if I am watching a foreign laguage flick. I always switch the language to Japanese when I watch an anime on DVD. As an example, I did not care for the English dub of Mononoke. The voices of Billy Bob and especially Claire Danes were horribly bad. That Billy Cruddup guy also provided weak dialog skills. God the movie is so much better in Japanese. Even if the Japanese actors are acting poorly, you'd probably never know it since you can't understand them

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 10-14-2001, 08:10 PM:

It's actually very common (at least in the US) for trailers for foreign films to not show any dialgoue scenes. Personally, I think it's kind of sneaky to do this, since it's obviously intended as a way to avoid discouraging people from seeing the film simply because they don't like subtitles.

Personally, I have a strong preference for subtitles over mediocre dubbing. There are some very nicely dubbed films, but they are in the minority. I've never really understood the objection to subtitles, as they don't bother me a bit.

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 10-14-2001, 09:17 PM:

Heh heh. Regarding Princess Mononoke, some reviewers in Japan had problems with Ishida Yuriko's performance as "San" the titular princess. Ishida-san is a popular live-action actress, mostly doing TV "trendy dramas", what we in the US would call soap operas. Some people thought her line readings were too modern, that they weren't savage enough to be convincing as an atavistic (San looks like a Jomon-era girl but the story takes place in the Muromachi period; she's out of place by around 1400 years) warrior girl raised by wolves. My Japanese ability isn't good enough to pick up on such nuances--but I still enjoyed the original dialog much more than the English dub. I know sometimes dubs can be very good (Das Boot in English and Porco Rosso in French come to mind) and sometimes they can be hilarious, even if unintentionally. But to me most dubs end up being in the vast, unsatisfying middle ground. So yes, give me subtitles over dubs any day! But my opinion is probably in the great minority as far as US movie audiences go. So what else is new?

BTW despite mostly glowing reviews Mononoke tanked badly in the US, whereas in Japan it is now the third highest grossing film in that country's history. Yet Disney/Miramax refused to release Mononoke in subtitled form in the US, fearing the factor being described in this thread--that people would stay away in droves. So they gave the film barely more than an art house release, and in so doing probably contributed to the very result they were worried about; I think the probability is that art house patrons are more likely to avoid dubbed films. Giving the film only a half-hearted promotional push didn't help either. Oh well, at least we now have the R1 DVD with the option to play the Japanese tracks. But even there Disney originally planned to include only the English and French tracks with closed captioning. Only after a massive letter-writing campaign on the part of Studio Ghibli's North American fans in the Spring of 1999 did Disney re-evaluate their decision regarding the R1 DVD tracks and subtitles.

Next month Buena Vista Japan will release Mononoke on R2 DVD (yeah, The Mouse owns the video distribution rights to Studio Ghibli's films even in Japan). And guess what? It will have English subtitles available even though this is a Japanese domestic release. Sheesh!

Oops, I'm ranting again. Off my soapbox now...

Paul

Posted by Don Sneed (Member # 955) on 10-14-2001, 09:59 PM:

When Star Wars II open here in Japan a couple of years ago, the opening scene which explane the what has happen before the movie scene start, you all know what I trying to say, well the sub-title in Japanese was off to the right side & just a little on the masking, (we have some strange screen sizes here & the lenses is just a little over size to fit the screen) with the sub-title cutting off just barely, really not enough to make a bid deal over it...whoooaa weeeee I thought I was going to be caine, shot or go to jail because of it, it is a big deal over here, but after the opening scene all sub-titles were at the bottom of the screen...the theatre had been open about a year or so before Star Wars II & they never had that problem before or since, well until the Star Wars II comes out....The theatre was upset, but they did not want to go to a smaller size picture due to changing the lens and/or picture size, so they left it alone, all was forgiven !!

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 10-14-2001, 10:35 PM:

I could never understand why people hate subtitled films. (Talk about judging a book by it's cover!) After watching for a few minutes, I sort of feel like I'm really hearing the actors say what is written.

I really disliked the english dub of Das Boot. While some of the actors know english and did a good job dubbing their own lines, it still looked like the "joke" of a japanense horror movie dubbed to english. I switched it back to german w/ english subtitles. The lips just don't match!

On the other hand, the reader of subtitles is at the mercy of the translater. A friend already had a DVD of Iron Monkey he got last year. The translations were not-so-good. They did a much better job for the new film release.

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 10-14-2001, 11:09 PM:

Star Wars II????????

Posted by Joe Beres (Member # 678) on 10-14-2001, 11:19 PM:

I have to say I agree with James and many others here. I think dubbing is ridiculous. If I want to see a film, I want to see that film shown in the way it was intended to be shown, period. That means in its original language and in its original aspect ratio.

I ran into a weird thing the other day though. i showed a restored print of the Umbrellas of Cherbourg. I am almost positive that the film was shot in the 1.66 aspect ratio. The restored print from zeitgeist was hard matted 1.85 though. I guess I've seen this in other US released foreign films, but it seems strange to cater so completely to the theatres that don't have the equipment, initiative, or respect to show the 1.66 aspect ratio. They could have at least printed the original 1.66 image and subtitled for 1.85. Umbrellas looked fine, but many films would not.

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 10-14-2001, 11:48 PM:

It's an old arguement: Do you format the film as the director intended, or format it so it looks best in the ratio most theaters have?

Good reasons on both sides, but I think I'd rather have my film look good to the most people. So I'd just make it 1.85 or scope.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-15-2001, 02:23 AM:

Interesting that no one has brought up the "subtitled projection done wrong" argument. About 6-8 years ago there was this toilet known as the Promenade in Dallas that would show Hong Kong films on the weekends at midnights. The movies were great, but the theater was hands down the biggest dump I've ever been in and they had projection to match (no fault of the projectionist, though). The HK films would run in their "big" (cough, cough) screen and had horrible keystoning going on in two directions. The keystoning not only was annoying from a standpoint of reading the subtitles, but the projectionist had to focus on the subtitles which resulted in the action in the top third of the screen running out of focus. This doesn't even get into the "Evans' Syndrome" of the 1.85 fixed aspect ratio, since most of these movies were shot in scope. There's nothing like having the subtitles run off of the screen where you miss the first and last few words on each line! I would have much preferred seeing those films at that theater dubbed so that the action in the top part of the screen could have been focused better and I could've known ALL of what was being said. Oh well, we didn't go there for the presentation anyway. For the record though, I cast my vote for subtitles.

(And believe it or not, the projectionist at that theater is with us here. )

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 10-15-2001, 08:39 AM:

I much prefer subtitles to a poorly-dubbed film.

When I saw a "Film Done Right" presentation of "Dances With Wolves" in Tokyo in October 1991, the print had English dialog, Japanese sub/side titles, and the original English subtitles when Lakota was being spoken.

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Cell: 716-781-4036 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 10-16-2001, 02:28 AM:

I like the French system whereby a cinema will usually show the 'Version Originale' at the early evening show and a 'Version Francaise' at the later performance (sometimes subtitled, sometimes dubbed).

It means that if you can speak the language in which the film was originally shot then you don't have to put up with graffiti all over the screen. If you can't, then there is the option of a translated show. The drawback, of course, is double the number of prints, though a Bordeaux cinema owner I met last year said that UIP were starting to ship two sets of DTS discs with a single print (so you just insert the original or dubbed soundtrack as required). Obviously this is no good if you don't have DTS or if you want subtitles.

A laser subtitling system would get round this problem (presumably you could have the subtitle text digitally encoded on the print in some way) but to my knowledge no-one could has yet come up with one. Another advantage would be that you could run descriptive subtitles for the deaf on some shows at virtually no extra expense.

Posted by Steven Gorsky (Member # 603) on 10-16-2001, 03:53 AM:

DTS makes a subtitling system using a special player and projector. More info can be found at DTS's website.

Steven Gorsky

Posted by Richard Fowler (Member # 893) on 10-16-2001, 08:19 AM:

Most of my customers are very used to sub-titles and it varies market to market due to release patterns. In Latin America sub-titles are common while in Spain the same film will probably be dubbed.....dubbing in Germany is generally excellent.
DTS sub-title system is also aimed for the film archive market. I am working with an archive which has 4000 prints and they have daily performances from this library in which they use a floppy with the text and a PC slaved by a time code generator attached to the projectors ( 10 to 20 minute reel changeovers )....this is an inperfect setup since changeovers, splices to prints etc causes timing errors....which they correct on the fly with advance / retard buttons on a contol box. DTS is working with a German audio equipment manufacturer to supply a machine or service in which DTS time code can be laser etched on to an existing print.....
As another side note, an associate has built an logging system using the DTS reader head to read advertising films as they are being projected as a proof to clients that their advertising money is being spent properly....simular concept as used to electronically log television ads......
Richard Fowler
TVP-Theatre & Video Products Inc www.tvpmiami.com

Posted by Kristin Wahlund (Member # 922) on 10-16-2001, 01:13 PM:

Thanks everyone for replying! My opinion is that when I go to a movie I don't like to have to read everything because then I don't even se the picture. It basically sucks.

------------------
Kristin Wahlund
Regal Cinemas
Eagan 16, MN

Posted by Charles Everett (Member # 889) on 11-26-2001, 07:15 AM:

Aw, Kristin! You should have been where I was this weekend. Amelie had no trouble selling out a 4:45 matinee in a New Jersey megaplex. Better yet, it was in an AMC.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 11-26-2001, 08:07 AM:

The more subtitled films you see, the easier it becomes to 'skim read' the subtitles very quickly and still spend 90% of the time watching the picture. I can understand that subtitles can be off-putting for audiences which don't see foreign-language films very often, though.

What's really annoying is when the subtitler actually changes the meaning of the original dialogue. A lot of that happened when 'Taxi' was released over here, presumably to help the film get a 15-certificate. In particular, screams of 'sacre merde' (literally, holy shit) during the Marseilles gun battle scene were subtitled as 'Oh No'. When I saw it all the French speakers were laughing like drains and everyone else was wondering what all the fuss was about.

BTW, in the days of silent film Hollywood editors were instructed to cut the length of intertitles so that they were on the screen for two seconds per word (useful to know, because from the length of an intertitle in feet and the number of words in the text you can work out the correct projection speed). Imagine how much it would slow things down if that rule were applied to subtitles today!

Posted by Gerard S. Cohen (Member # 994) on 11-27-2001, 07:11 PM:

Once the theatre was rented to an Indian organization for a nine reel Bollywood musical filmed in Hindi in 1.66 format with English
subtitles. Only, the manager forgot to inform me! The patrons overran
everything, running the refreshment stands and forcing their way into
the booth, claiming they were delegations of cultural representatives
responsible for this all-important event.
Once the film started , "delegations" of young people born in the US
begged me to rack the image to show the titles so they could follow the story, even though, without the correct lens & aperture plate,
most of the heads would be cut off. That brought delegations of their
elders, blaming the young for being too lazy to learn their ancestral tongue, saying it was important to show all of their favorite actors,
not disrespect actors and elders by cutting heads.
After clearing the booth and locking the door, I compromisd by showing
heads during the lyrical dream sequence musical numbers, and showing
titles during the dramatic dialogue scenes. That really kept me
hopping! Of course, the manager and his staff had disappeared...
That's the only trouble I ever had with sub-titles. The Art Theatres
in Manhattan had full complements of lenses and aperture plates
for all formats, but theatres in the 'burbs didn't.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-27-2001, 07:19 PM:

Precisely why ALL prints should be screened prior to the public (or in this case, a private rental group) viewing them. Generally screenings are important to catch lab defects, but in this case it is possible that you might've been able to find another flat lens in the theater that was just a bit longer and you could've put masking tape on the window to get through that one show. Sure, that's not the correct way of doing it, but the show would have ran better given the circumstance.

Posted by Gerard S. Cohen (Member # 994) on 11-27-2001, 08:57 PM:

I certainly agree about the necessity of inspecting and previewing
films. In the above situation I had no prior warning of the event,
nor was the print made up in my theatre. It was carried in clamped
as the patrons were arriving. The only other lenses in the theatre were a scope and a 70mm flat; our flagship theatre had the longest throw of any in the area. Perhaps removing the aperture plate and
drastically masking the porthole glass might have been an emergency expedient that hadn't occurred to me at the time.

Posted by Bob Maar (Member # 763) on 11-27-2001, 09:32 PM:

We have several theatres here in New York that run sub titles on a regular basis. Dan Talbot, President of New Yorker films has a six plex called the Lincoln Plaza, just opposite Lincoln Center in Manhattan. His pictures are imported and most are sub-titled.

I have seen many films with sub titles and I have no recall about missing the action or plot because I was reading. It has become sort of automatic. I enjoy the films and do not give reading a second thought. Same goes for the film's at Karen Cooper's Film-Forum.

Posted by Brian Hogan (Member # 940) on 02-04-2002, 07:55 PM:

has anyone had a problem with the sub titles for brotherhood of the wolf? we have gotten some complaints about them being too fuzy for people to read. they are a bit fuzzy, but still readable to me.

and on a side note... why must they use white sub titles so often? dont they know yellow is the way to go? sakes.

Posted by James R. Hammonds, Jr (Member # 673) on 02-04-2002, 08:09 PM:

I noticed the fuzzy titles also, but never had a problem reading them, nor did i have any complaints about them.
The only problem I had with them is that they are printed so low that you have to frame the picture up as high as it can go without seeing the frame line so they wont get chopped off the bottom.
Didnt have problems like that with other films with subtitles.

Posted by Arthur Allen (Member # 969) on 02-04-2002, 09:02 PM:

They use white because that's the cheapest; all you have to do is print black on a negative, and it comes out white. If you wanted to print yellow, it would be more expensive and the image would be further degraded by more optical generations.

However, and I swear I saw this on film rather than on video, there might be a technique out there that scrapes some of the base emusion around the outlines of the lettering while printing, so the results are white subtitles with a rough dark outline.

Posted by Joe Beres (Member # 678) on 02-04-2002, 09:28 PM:

Arthur, you are referring to laser subtitles, and they do indeed exist. From my experience, it is most common to see them on French prints. I've seen dozens of prints subtitled at Titra and Laser Video Titres, both in Paris. I think it is the best subtitle method around. It's also great because it isn't a photo graphic process. Therefore, ten prints can be struck and processed, and then each of them can be subtitled in a different language. I would imagine this ends up being cheaper (especially if translating into several languages), although I do no know the casts involved.

Posted by Bob Healey (Member # 1003) on 02-04-2002, 10:41 PM:

This doesn't exactly apply to movies, but the anime fans on campus here for the most part won't touch anything that has been dubbed or is recorded in English, so they most likely don't have a problem with subtitled films.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 02-05-2002, 10:22 AM:

Subtitles are typically etch by various means (laser chemical hotwax stamping) and remove the emulsion leaving white letters.
In mass relase a seperate neg is made for the subtitles
White letters on a dark background which in most shots the lower portion of the screen is has the highest contrast

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 02-05-2002, 01:04 PM:

Links about subtitling techniques:
http://www.titrafilm.com/TitraEn/pagesEn/laser_subtitling.html
http://www.titrafilm.com/TitraEn/pagesEn/subtitling.html
http://www.titra.com/film.html
http://www.iai.nl/1024/Frame1024.html
http://www.geocities.com/karamitroglou/agencies.html

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 03-08-2004, 04:07 PM:

Bringing this back up since it was announced at the NYICFF that Princess Mononoke will be re-released theatrically in the US, this time in Japanese with English subtitles. Which is what I thought Miramax should have done with it back in '99. More than likely another small art house release. Don't know which Disney label will handle distribution this time.