Posted by dorayme on 05/18/06 05:58

In article <IaQag.482$E02.257@newsb.telia.net>,
"Luigi Donatello Asero" <jaggillarfotboll@telia.com> wrote:

> "dorayme" <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> skrev i meddelandet
> news:doraymeRidThis-7D3565.11181918052006@news-vip.optusnet.com.au...
> > In article <YJPag.480$E02.182@newsb.telia.net>,
> > "Luigi Donatello Asero" <jaggillarfotboll@telia.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I have been used to see both.
> > > In Italy and in Germany you do not use subtitles as a rule.
> >
> > That's because the German's are very good at dubbing, they employ
> > very good actors to do it and it is under very professional
> > direction. So there is less call for subtitles...
>
> I am not sure that it depends on that...
> Hearing Maryln Monroe dubbed ny another actress is not the same as hearing
> her voice...

It can be better! In the same way, a remake of an "original" film
can be better.

The point is that if dubbing is done well, this removes many (but
obviously not all) of the reasons to subtitle. If you need
subtitles for MM, you are as often as not, likely to be not quite
as sensitive as an English speaker to the ... how can I put this?
.... to the subtleties of the timbre of her cooings.

Actually, I suspect you are not taking the idea of "good dubbing"
seriously. Germany is different to many other countries on this
one. The yanks are almost certainly the worst at dubbing. (The
Germans would dub to transmit what was interesting and so
beguiling or ridiculous about MM and so your point is suspect)



> The same works for Brigitte Bardot regardless of the language the film has
> been dubbed to (Italian or German or whatever)

See above...

> Besides subtitles are cheaper anyway.

Now, Luigi, let us not descend to the grubby...

--
dorayme

[Back to original message]