Do you prefer translated voice overs or subtitles?

Tommy K

Tommy K

Well-known member
I would like to hear some opinions on VO's versus subtitles. If you are watching a documentary with a many non english speaking people, does reading subtitles become too tedious for you. Like reading a book instead of watching a video? Or would you prefer to have english translations voiced over the person speaking on screen? Their will be an English speaking narrator who ties the show together. Appreciate yout thoughts.
 
I usually watch it the first time dubbed so I don't miss any of the action on screen while I'm reading. After that, I'll watch it with subtitles to get the flavor of the actual actors' voices.
 
since DVD technology allows for both an let you choose wich one you want to see, i would prefer to have choice.
 
nosys70 said:
since DVD technology allows for both an let you choose wich one you want to see, i would prefer to have choice.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your input. For DVD this seems like the way to go. Which would you prefer if you didn't have a choice, as in watching a broadcast program?
 
long interviews (talking heads) are pretty boring so i do not mind to have some readings and you can hear the real voice of the speaker (and eventually catch bad translation).
if the picture is interesting, i prefer to avoid reading
but if the talk flow is heavy, lot of reading is boring too, especially if the original voice is still present in the background.
My wife would prefer voice over, since she can follow from the kitchen just with the speach....
 
I agree that for documentary interviews/actualities, having a VO translation is preferred. Furthermore, the practice of using same-gender translator VO, and even different VO voices for different interviewees gives a better variety and feeling for the diversity of subjects. At the very least, having a different voice for the translation VOs vs. the narrator would be preferable if the budget and schedule allows.
 
Richard Crowley said:
I agree that for documentary interviews/actualities, having a VO translation is preferred. Furthermore, the practice of using same-gender translator VO, and even different VO voices for different interviewees gives a better variety and feeling for the diversity of subjects. At the very least, having a different voice for the translation VOs vs. the narrator would be preferable if the budget and schedule allows.
Click to expand...

I agree with all of your points. I think this is the best way to go. You confirmed my thoughts on diversity and same gender. Thanks.
 
In the Netherlands everything foreign is subtitled. That is one of the reasons the Dutch are custom to learing other languages (it's not the goal, but it help). Only cartoons and movies/series for children are dubbed.

So I don't prefer VO translation at all as I am used to alway hearing the exact spoken words and intonation. Our TV-stations are equiped for this and there are many subtitling/translation-companies here.

And every time I think about this, it still surprizes me that this is not the standard way of coping with foreign language tv/film/etc.

The always-reading-stuff-while-watching/listening is not a problem if you're used to it. And I think I can speak for all of us Dutch people (exept the illiterate people).

Of course this is not a usable answer if you look at it at a worldwide level. If the larger part of the target audience isn't used to subtitling like the Dutch are, there's no (commercial) reason to follow that couleur locale.
 
Last edited:
Agree with
Doco=VO
Narrative=original

Back in 2001 while travelling in Lithuania I was surprised and amused to see Baywatch being screened with all dialogue dubbed into some sort of Russian dialect.

The original soundtrack was still there, although barely discernable, but the funny thing was that the dubbed Ruski dialogue utilised the same male voice for every character.

Very funny to see Pam Anderson speaking with a male voice. Apparently it's a hang over from past Russian rule where they thought that the locals may pick up English which the authorities frowned upon.

It's probably different now I expect.
 
leepback said:
Agree with
Doco=VO
Narrative=original

Back in 2001 while travelling in Lithuania I was surprised and amused to see Baywatch being screened with all dialogue dubbed into some sort of Russian dialect.

The original soundtrack was still there, although barely discernable, but the funny thing was that the dubbed Ruski dialogue utilised the same male voice for every character.

Very funny to see Pam Anderson speaking with a male voice. Apparently it's a hang over from past Russian rule where they thought that the locals may pick up English which the authorities frowned upon.

It's probably different now I expect.
Click to expand...


Now that is very funny! Thanks for sharing that! I can just imagine Pamela Anderson with a KGB Ruski voice. Sure takes the sex appeal down a few notches lol.

Thanks for the input. It sounds like VO are proper for docs. This is my preference also.
 
Many years ago I was staying with friends in Germany and they were watching the Clint Eastwood movie "Two Mules for Sister Sarah" dubbed into German. Problem was that an actor with a rather high squeaky voice was doing all of Eastwood's lines and I couldn't keep from laughing. I had to leave the room so they could enjoy the movie.
 
My first experience with this question was in anime, where some of the early dubs were done with voices about as well-cast as what Richard mentions :), so I have a tendency to always say "subtitles." After thinking about it a bit, though...

Clearly subtitles are not the preferred option for documentary work, and I wonder why. I would think that it would be better to hear the real person's voice and emotion by subtitling. What am I missing? :)
 
Last edited:
Doco=VO - Narrative=original?
Don't agree necessarily.
Many documentary films are actually narrative too.
One thing is to watch a doc about lions in the Serengeti plains, another is to watch a cinema-veritè style documentary about people.
A couple of years ago i spent 5 months in Sudan and 2 in Afghanistan working as a soundman in a small crew of three. We shot a feature documentary, recording all the dialogues in Italian, English, Persian, Arabic and Nuba and left them as they were, with subtitles. As a soundman and as a documentary lover i could never imagine that film dubbed.
 
Yeah, I also completely disagree with the interview doco = VO thing stated earlier in this thread. In doco's it can be extremely important to get the body language and feel for the language even if it isn't your native tongue. It can convey truth or lies, it has information. Burying with a VO could be misleading even if the tone of the VO doesn't match the tone and intent of the original interviewee. When using VO in documentary work, I would be very, VERY careful actually. The risk of changing meaning, or at least the subtle clues, is very real -- and that's exactly what you DON'T want to do in a documentary IMHO.
 
Perhaps it is a difference between short-form and long-form. My preference for VO translators was mainly from a news/magazine short-form perspective where you don't have time to "get into" the native language and feel like you can read the subtitles without missing something visually.
 
Tommy K said:
I would like to hear some opinions on VO's versus subtitles. If you are watching a documentary with a many non english speaking people, does reading subtitles become too tedious for you. Like reading a book instead of watching a video? Or would you prefer to have english translations voiced over the person speaking on screen? Their will be an English speaking narrator who ties the show together. Appreciate yout thoughts.
Click to expand...
I want to hear the genuine voices of the people on screen, whether it be a documentary or a fictional story. To me, dubbed voices not only reduce the program's authenticity, but also make it seem almost comical. Any time I channel surf and come across an English language movie with dubbed in Spanish-speaking voices, I can't help but perceive it as silly. It does require more effort to read subtitles than listen in the viewers' native language, but I still prefer it. I am sort of a purist. Your narrator, however, can enhance comprehension for the audience.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top