She Said Subtitles English ^HOT^
There's a reason that the term "lost in translation" exists, but usually it isn't so on the nose in its meaning. As the Netflix series Squid Game continues to pick up popularity on the streaming service, a relatively big issue has come up: the Korean-to-English translation may not be as true to the story as you'd hope. As most Americans aren't fluent in Korean, the K-drama features English subtitles (or English-dubbing for those who prefer), but those are most effective when, you know... they're correct. At least one viewer noticed some inconsistencies worth pointing out.
She Said subtitles English
Mayer then said she would head over to TikTok to do a more involved illustration of how Netflix's translators missed the mark when it came to getting the context of the series down. She focuses specifically on the character of Mi-nyeo, whose brash behavior and irreverence toward the guards in Squid Game comes off as, honestly, a bit bonkers considering that if you don't win this game, you die. But with additional context from Mayer, Mi-nyeo's character makes a lot more sense.
She Said English subtitles can be downloaded from australiapopulation.com. Many versions of Subtitles have been added. Your No. 1 trusted subtitle blog, australiapopulation.com is here to ensure you have an easy read throughout the subtitle to the trending movies and Tv Shows.
In shows that I typically watch without captions, I turn the captions on whenever there is a song, as happens sometimes in Family Guy, The Simpsons, and Bob's Burgers. This obviously helps me understand the lyrics, which I really want to do considering the great care that is put into the music on these shows. After the song is over, however, I turn the captions off right away, because I don't want any jokes to be spoiled by my reading them before the line in question is said, even if the difference amounts only to a split-second.
I started watching with subtitles many years ago when my wife, who's Spanish, but is a proficient English speaker, keep asking me for clarification of what was being said at certain moments in a movie, for example. It was better to use subtitles or captions in English than to keep having my watching interrupted. But what I realised is I had also been watching without understanding every word of what was being said during a movie or series. So, I also began to rely on subtitles or captions, and to an extent that I leave then on even when my wife is not present.
With subtitles, if they are in any language other than English. By choice, I will always watch a film in the original (undubbed) language, whether or not I understand that language. What I found interesting, though, is the comparison between two different films/series, the first being "Three Pines" (8-part series set in Québec) and the 2022 release of Maigret, starring Gérrard Depardieu. Because the first was set in Québec, I assume (wrongly, as it turned out) that the original language was French, so selected the French audio track. To my surprise, all speakers spoke in Metropolitan French, not in Québecois, and I understood about 90% of the dialogue, barely needing the subtitles. But for Maigret, I understood barely 10% of the dialogue, and was totally dependent on the sub-titles. So it seems to me (although this is not germane to the theme of this thread) that the register of the language used when dubbing can be markedly different from the register used in the original sound-track. A particularly bad example comes to mind. About 50 years ago, I watched a Japanese language film in a London arts cinema. There was Japanese over the loudspeakers, French in the headphones, and English sub-titles. At some point fairly early on in the film, a young boy greets his father very formally, with many bows and many honorifics. The English sub-titles read "Hi, Pop !".
Unless we are talking Hollywood movies who tend to have such atrocious sound mixing that it is often near impossible to follow the dialogue as it becomes a flip between either being able to understand the dialogue but get your ears blown off from the non-diaolgue soundtrack, or keeping the soundtrack to a human level but it being humanly impossible to pick up a thing that is being said.
My wife is Thai, and though her English is pretty good, she still finds the subtitles helpful. After several years of switching them on or off depending on who is watching, I now leave them on all the time, just for convenience. And now that I am used to having them on all the time, I find it difficult to understand the dialog without them. This may be for any number of reasons, but no matter.
The thing I find most annoying about the subtitles, though, is when (as is increasingly the case) a movie is either multi-lingual, or there is an actor speaking another language. In the un-subtitled version, a subtitle will appear, translating the dialog. But the subtitled version will simply state [SPEAKING FOREIGN LANGUAGE] or [SPEAKS SPANISH] or whatever the case may be. Unfortunately, the subtitle is completely superimposed over the original translation, making it unreadable. It makes me want to shout at the screen: "I know she's speaking a foreign language! I want to know what she's saying!"
If the audience the subtitles are "meant" for is hard of hearing, then surely, if they can read the closed captioning, they can read the original subtitles too. It the captioners want the audience to know that the speaker is speaking another language, surely there is a better way to do it than to completely obliterate the translation.
I think this is part and parcel of several other related trends that people here might like. Filmmakers now feel not just permission, but perhaps even an obligation, for foreign characters to be played by actors speaking that language, rather than speaking English with a stilted accent. Science fiction and fantasy TV shows now very often hire linguists to construct alien languages, even if audiences won't be able to tell the difference from unstructured gibberish. Similarly, sound designers now sometimes design the sound to give you more of the feeling of the sound environment they want you to experience, rather than prioritizing intelligibility of the speech of the characters. All of this is enabled by the ease and acceptance of subtitles and captioning, which also turn out to be very helpful for anyone who wants to watch a video on a small screen, or when the kids are sleeping, or in any of the other environments we can watch in now apart from the best theaters.
a relief in a way. i'm not actually going deaf. but also a bit annoying. the video is about all the stuff i'm supposed to do to compensate for the fact that so many people are making so many trash decisions (or, like Nolan, just arrogantly shoving bad stuff into people's faces). funny Ferdinand mentioned Star Trek, because the content of this video became clear to me some time ago when i contrasted Discovery, in which it is nearly impossible to understand what the main actor is saying (only Michelle Yeoh and Anson Mount can be understood) to the original Star Trek, in which every single actor can always be understood. the difference? training. all the original Star Trek actors had stage training. they all knew how to speak. and, oh, they were also more credible and interesting than the folks getting paid to do Star Trek today. mumbling and whispering don't make for good acting, no matter how "naturalistic" they claim it is. it isn't natural. so my suggestion is instead of me paying to see everything in a surround sound theater or using subtitles to listen to American media in my living room, how about actors learn to speak and directors be willing to make stuff people can actually watch. the only reason old time bad micing produced good sound and current technology produces bad sound is attitude.
Something not mentioned (I confess I did not watch the entire video, so maybe it's there?) is that there are constraints on space and time; the bottom of the screen has only so much space, and the text must remain long enough to be read. I had a student who went on to work in this field and she told me that often subtitlers were forced to paraphrase or otherwise alter the dialogue simply to get it on the screen under the constraints just mentioned. She was doing subtitles for translated text, in which it is often impossible to somehow render everything, but told me that this applies even in the original language.
In the 2012 film 'The Master', the troubled Navy veteran character did such a good job of being a mumbling drunk that you could hardly understand a word he said.And I was so irritated that I remember it 10 years later.Making dialogue sound natural yet remain intelligible is a skill that actors need to master. Seems like many don't bother.
@ohwilleke, a similar exercise is to do the same in your own language with the volume muted, subtitles on, and trying to read the lips of the actors and pick up on the discrepancies. I used to do this when watching films well after my housemates had gone to bed.
I think that is a little harsh. When I watch films at the cinema (obviously without subtitles) I rarely miss anything but I do miss enough when watching TV that I have the subtitles on. So I think that the dialogue is okay in the films in a cinema.
@Barry Cusack"Though it would help if the contrast between text and background could be got right: unreadable subtitles are fairly frequent"It used to be the case (last century) that subtitles were white and so disappeared on white, or pale backgrounds.
This is sort-of a game that my wife & I play, seeing where and how they have paraphrased what was said, sometimes altering the meaning. One particular version of this is where the person doing the subtitles presumably knows little or nothing about the programme and so has no real idea what to do with jargon. For example, in a police programme AFIS (pronounced as a word) has been subtitled, IIRC, as 'aphid'. 041b061a72