AMC To Add Onscreen Captions at Some Locations (nytimes.com) 139
AMC Entertainment, the largest movie theater chain in the world, will offer open captioning at 240 locations in the United States, a move that the company's chief executive described as "a real advance for those with hearing difficulties or where English is a second language." From a report: Movie theaters provide closed captioning through devices that some customers describe as inconvenient and prone to malfunctioning. Open captions, however, are displayed on the screen in a way similar to subtitles; everyone in the theater sees the same captions, on the same screen. Advocates for the deaf and hard of hearing have long sought more and higher-quality captioning, but theater owners worry that people who aren't deaf simply don't like seeing captions at the movies.
"In some cases, putting open captions on the screen diminishes ticket sales for the movie," said John Fithian, the president and chief executive of the National Association of Theatre Owners, although he noted that the evidence was mostly anecdotal. He said the industry, whose business has been battered by the pandemic, was studying the relationship between open captions and ticket sales. Christian Vogler, a professor at Gallaudet University, a school in Washington that serves the deaf, said in an email, "Detractors of open captions often have argued that the wider hearing audience would revolt over them, or that these would be a losing business proposition for theaters." He praised AMC's move, which was announced last week, saying, "The fact that a large national chain has had a change of heart is significant, and may even open the floodgates for others to follow suit."
"In some cases, putting open captions on the screen diminishes ticket sales for the movie," said John Fithian, the president and chief executive of the National Association of Theatre Owners, although he noted that the evidence was mostly anecdotal. He said the industry, whose business has been battered by the pandemic, was studying the relationship between open captions and ticket sales. Christian Vogler, a professor at Gallaudet University, a school in Washington that serves the deaf, said in an email, "Detractors of open captions often have argued that the wider hearing audience would revolt over them, or that these would be a losing business proposition for theaters." He praised AMC's move, which was announced last week, saying, "The fact that a large national chain has had a change of heart is significant, and may even open the floodgates for others to follow suit."
Useful for SciFi movies (Score:2)
So you don't have to know Kilngon, Wookiiee, or Fremen...
Re: (Score:2)
Actually captioning can ruin those.
With captions off, you see the english translation of what the Klingon is saying.
When you turn captions on, that caption is covered up with a caption that says [speaking Klingon].
Remember 3D glasses? (Score:2)
Disclaimer: have not been to a movie theater in almost 30 years.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Scene: In the garage using a grinding disc.
Wife: "Where are your safety glasses?"
Him: "Personally I would prefer not to wear glasses ever again after getting surgery so I would not have to wear glasses."
Wife: "Fool! He is so unknowing."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize glasses to read closed captions would also serve a different purpose. So you just invalidated your original point.
No one would be required to wear the glasses to watch the movie. They would only need to wear the glasses if they wanted to read the closed captions. You would only need to wear the glasses because you can't hear the audio (and you need to be quite deaf to not hear movie theater audio) or you really like to read closed captioning.
Re: (Score:2)
Well if your ears are good, then you don't need the glasses. I know it sound's ironic, however for the number of people who are hard of hearing, if glasses, can be an assistance aid, then they should have them available, as it would be cheaper and less distracting to those who don't need them.
Why not use better technology? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why not use better technology? (Score:5, Funny)
In order to tailor the movie experience every user should get their own screen with their own volume control. They can decide if they want subtitles or not, they can decide how loud the movie is. Hell, they can even decide when to have impromptu intermissions by pausing the movie. This can all happen in a private viewing booth with a couch that you can even lay on. For the ultimate theatre experience they can even bring this to your home so you don't need to travel. The future of theatres sure will be incredible!
Re: (Score:2)
I think the market for people who can afford a Dolby Cinema in their house is pretty slim. Your idea sounds amazing but it's just not realistic.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the market for people who can afford a Dolby Cinema in their house is pretty slim. Your idea sounds amazing but it's just not realistic.
If only TVs had closed caption.
Re: (Score:2)
Does that $300 monitor give you the same large screen experience as going to a movie theater?
Do you really want me to sit 6 inches from the screen to get the same effect?
Sure there are a lot of movies that it won't make too much of a difference if you watch them on a 24in screen or a 50ft screen but there are some movies where the difference it very noticeable.
Re: (Score:2)
I also sit at home starving. Sure I have food, a kitchen and the knowledge to cook. What I don't have is a $300 Damascus steel santoku knife. I only have this basic $40 chefs knife which, according to foodies, is inadequate.
Re: (Score:2)
Man, I wish this was Reddit so I could give you gold or something for that.
Rear Window Captioning System? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They were dark and not as transparent as glasses people are mentioning in other comments. If we could get them a bit more transparent, that might make them a nicer option too.
Re: Rear Window Captioning System? (Score:2)
I think a system could be designed that would stream the captions to a users smartphone in real-time, based on a pre-movie QR code on the screen, with a cup holder with a long extension arm to hold your phone at your preferred level on relation to the movie (just under the screen in your field of vision?) and display thin white text on a dark background to minimize the distraction to other patrons.
Finally (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Finally (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Forget emotional moments, someone turn the volume down on Hans Zimmer! If you've ever watched Inception, you know what I mean.
Re: (Score:2)
I have tinitus and what many who don't have it don't recognize is that the frequencies I can hear, I can hear exceptionally well. I can recognize the UPS truck coming down my street from half a mile away while inside the house.
So I too watch everything with captions now because between the soundtrack and the subtle tones in speech, it's really easy to "not understand" even though I hear the noises being emitted.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it's fine for a TV show. But, if you are paying $10-20 for a movie ticket, you want a movie theater experience. Subtitles detract from the immersive quality
For me that depends on the film. If it is a film with foreign languages, I would prefer subtitles over dubbing. Even the best dubbing cannot match lip movements all the time. For example, Shang Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings [wikipedia.org] had parts where the characters speak Mandarin.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm fine with captions in movies with large amounts of mixed dialog. I just watched a German one that was about half and half.
It's movies solely a different language. I want to watch the movie and hear the voices, not be constantly looking down to do so.
Really, the novelty of the superior quality of the original speaker's inflection and emotion, as opposed to the dubbing actor's, is lost on me.
Re: (Score:2)
And don't get me started on not mirror imaging Japanese comics because they read right to left. Boy now that is the visual equivalent of an audiophile's imagination about the greatness of gold-plated cords if ever I saw one.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe it's not you (Score:5, Informative)
Maybe it's my age, but honestly I watch everything with captions at home these days. I catch every word with captions now when I don't always do by listening. Frankly with some experience it's not that hard to read the subtitles in your peripheral vision while watching the entire show.
It might not be related to you at all.
There's a movement in Hollywood to make the effects louder and dialogue less clear. It's based on a theory that in real life the car crash would interfere with your understanding of a person talking next to you, and this enhances the immersive quality.
As an example, check out "Tenet". It's a very good movie, but Cameron obscures the dialogue on purpose at times, and it's really easy to lost track of what's being said throughout the movie, and you have to keep guessing about key information. You can google various reviews that point out that the obscuring is on purpose.
As an example, check out Dave Chappelle's new special, and see how many words you miss. If you can understand a professionally mixed comedy special, there's no reason to expect that missing words in a movie is due to old age.
Re: (Score:2)
It might not be related to you at all. There's a movement in Hollywood to make the effects louder and dialogue less clear. It's based on a theory that in real life the car crash would interfere with your understanding of a person talking next to you, and this enhances the immersive quality.
Yeah, I hate the theory of directing that says that if the events are jumbled and confusing to the characters they're happening to, the film should be jumbled and confusing to the people watching.
The worst example of this was Game of Thrones, where they shot a major battle sequence in the dark, apparently in the belief that since the people on screen couldn't see what was happening, you shouldn't be able to see it either.
Re: Maybe it's not you (Score:2)
It's cheaper to shoot. That's why they do shit like that, nothing to do with art.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
As an example, check out "Tenet". It's a very good movie...
Tenet sucked.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, that sounds idiotic. And therefore all too likely. Create a story, and deliberately make it hard to follow, because...reasons. Obfuscating dialog may contribute to realism, but not all parts of reality are things we want to preserve. The last television series my wife and I watched, there were multiple times in every episode where one of us had to ask the other "what did they say?". And sometimes neither of us knew, rewind, listen again, and we still couldn't make it out.
Contributes to Immersion? No
Re: (Score:2)
It's fine to obfuscate dialog if its content is not intended to advance the story, but rather the confusion, and hence missing it is irrelevant.
They sometimes also blot out vision, or hearing after a loud explosion, and you see mouths moving but nothing or a high ringing for a bit.
If it's hard to understand, don't sweat it. Unless it was a goof, but that is pretty rare.
Now I have seen plenty of examples where I don't understand the words in clear situations and I have to back up, or even turn on CC to unde
Re: (Score:2)
Open concept floor plans don't help.
While they are popular for the visual openness and ability for light to be everywhere, they also make it so that sound anywhere makes it to you. There's a lot more competing audio than if you're viewing in a dedicated room with limited entry/exit that can be blocked to mute the other sounds.
Combine that with volume levels that are normalized for the explosions and music interludes, the scenes where the people are whispering to each other don't rise above the sound of some
Re: (Score:2)
"Open concept floor plans don't help."
For a true, immersive movie experience, they don't help at all. That's why I have a home theater that's fully light and sound controlled. Having such a theater gives me almost no incentive to see movies in commercial theaters anymore. Just about the only time I do go is if I can't wait until a particular movie is available on Blu-Ray or streaming. Otherwise, I can do without the sticky floors, people talking and texting during the movie, $6 popcorn, and now, the intrusi
Choice Needed (Score:2)
Frankly with some experience it's not that hard to read the subtitles in your peripheral vision while watching the entire show.
I agree, but it is still extremely distracting if you do not want or need subtitles to have them there. However, provided they clearly label whether or not there are subtitles then I'm fine with that - just make sure we have the information to make a choice when buying a ticket.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe it's my age, but honestly I watch everything with captions at home these days.
I think that may have more to do with Christopher Nolan's popularity than your age. There's nothing quite like watching a scene like:
The Protagonist: So it turns out that all along the killer was *HANS ZIMMER ORGAN CHORD AT VOLUME 11*.
The Love Interest: I can't believe that *ANOTHER HANS ZIMMER ORGAN CHORD IN MINOR KEY AT VOLUME 11*.
Audience: WTF they say?
Re: (Score:2)
My wife speaks english as a second language, we have the subtitles turned on about 95% of the time. Youtube's auto-captioning feature has been incredible.
Over the last couple of years I've gotten used to captions, and I think so used to it, that it's actually impacted my listening comprehension, as I just read everything on the screen. Then Google Meet introduced live captioning in meetings. Incredible. Except I just changed jobs and we use Zoom which (I think) doesn't offer this feature, so I'm "re
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. Not your age. It's a combination of "actors and actresses in Hollywood don't know how to enunciate their words anymore and what comes out is pure mush" combined with "let's blast music and explosions so you can't hear them anyway." The end result is audio nonsense that no one can make out. The same thing happens on regular TV shows these days as well. I turn on subtitles for everything.
"A real advance for those with hearing difficulties" is a bunch of hogwash, baloney, and malarkey. The reality
THX! The audience is listening! (Score:2)
Turn it up!
Excuse for more mumbling on screen (Score:4, Informative)
The auditory version of the poorly-lit or jumbled action scene is one where the dialogue is drowned out by sound effects, music, or other noise in the scene.
I'm not saying everyone needs to project their voice and speak while speaking with the mid-Atlantic Katherine Hepburn accent, dubbed over in post, but maybe less mumbling and less whispering of things the audience is intended to hear.
They were circling the drain before covid. (Score:2)
This sounds more like desperation to reach a maximum possible audience. I haven't looked for awhile, I know they've since received a /r/WSB bailout from the ignorant. But, that does nothing for their exclusivity contracts which is where they made the majority of their money (not overpriced concessions, as is popular lore). Now virtually everything is released on some streaming service or another simultaneously.
I maintain that long term, they're probably fucked. They were swimming in debt (Chinese debt,
Re: (Score:2)
This sounds more like desperation to reach a maximum possible audience.
Curious use of the word desperation. In a competitive industry that is suffering greatly in the USA why would anyone right now do anything which leaves money on the table?
Re: (Score:2)
They seem to be willing to alienate regular audiences. Why? Because they're already not coming.
Re: (Score:2)
The exclusivity contracts didn't/don't contribute to the theaters bottom line directly. The studios don't need to pay the theaters more for exclusivity (if anything the theater probably had to give up more percentage of ticket sales). The exclusivity contracts mean that the theaters don't have to compete with home streamers and have a better chance of getting butts into seats (since a lot of people want to see a movie at the first available opportunity). The theaters make more money because there are more t
Works great (Score:2)
Here in Norway, subtitles are the norm on most movies. We don't like dubbing - except for content for small children - so most foreign content has captions at the movie theatre and on TV.
Works great.
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect your populace is mostly capable of reading. Here in the USA, we've amply demonstrated this last couple years that we have problems in that area.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think this story is about foreign films. The captioning is for the hearing impaired.
I'd guess there aren't that many movies released in Norwegian, though I do remember Kitchen Stories [wikipedia.org] was one of the last DVDs I ever rented from Blockbuster. I quite enjoyed that. But foreign movies aren't really mainstream here anyway.
So of course Norwegians would be used to subtitled movies, but Americans are definitely not.
What about ADA? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Subtitles don't bother me, unless they are in a different language and I understand both the speech and the text. Then it just gets confusing, because they never match up and in some cases the translation is heavily paraphrased.
Re: (Score:2)
Subtitles don't bother me, unless they are in a different language and I understand both the speech and the text. Then it just gets confusing, because they never match up and in some cases the translation is heavily paraphrased.
Those are the worst; sometimes it's as if you are watching two different movies.
So long as they advertise which showings it is (Score:2)
Personally I can't stand captions when the language of the film is English. They distract me and I can't not read them. That screws up the timing of jokes and really distracts you from the movie. On the other hand, there are people who need this and can't enjoy the show otherwise.
So a good compromise is to let us know in advance if captioning will be on. Those of us like me will avoid those showing. Those who like it can seek them out. We can both get more or less what we want. And it'll be interesti
Captions spoil comedies (Score:3)
With comedy, the timing of spoken lines is vital to the humor. Captions often spoil the effect by showing the punchline before it's spoken.
I'm older too and often turn on TV closed captioning to make sense of the less-audible dialogue. But I have to leave the captions off for comedies (at least the ones I care about) because otherwise, as I listen to the spoken dialogue, I'll glance down at the captions and see what the actors are saying before they say it. Punchlines and timing are ruined.
There exists technology to show captions on a seat-by seat basis, without glasses and without showing the captions to the entire theater, but it's more expensive than just just turning them on for everybody.
Put the captions underneath the image (Score:3)
Why is it that movies being displayed full screen in letterbox mode have black space under the picture but they do not put captions there?
Re: (Score:3)
Never mind movies, I want VLC to do this. And not just the captions either; all of the crap that's plastered over the video should be moved to the black bars if available: video controls, volume indication, all of the functions that place text over the video (audio delay, subtitle delay, etc.).
Re: (Score:2)
I guess it could depend on whether the captioning part of the film that is being letterboxed or is added by the TV.
As long as they are *good* subtitles (Score:3)
I am hearing impaired, not deaf, so I hate it when there are (easily detectable) bad subtitles.
E.g.
"{garbled}" - no, it's not garbled, it's recognizable - just not by whoever you had do the transcriptions. It's just out of date British slang or something, say. Hire someone who knows the subject matter to do the transcriptions.
{soft piano music playing} - this is sometimes okay, but I love it when the subtitles actually tell me what the music is. I would love that even if I were not hearing impaired. Good subtitles can enhance viewing for everybody. This was really well done in, say, the 2002 "Forsyte Saga". It tells you what piece is being played on the piano, or what opera they are attending, etc. Wonderful.
Out of sync subtitles - no, just no. Maddening. Get them reasonably lined up with the speech. Especially do not have them appear too soon and ruin dramatic tension.
Completely wrong subtitles - I've seen subtitles from a completely different TV episode playing. Insane. Have some QA, for pete's sake.
Why not (Score:2)
Just have a second shorter screen below the movie screen that displays the captions through a video projector?
That would ensure the deaf is accomodated, and people won't complain that the text is covering up the action on screen. This is an obvious no brainer.
I'm not opposed exactly (Score:2)
It's just I have a quirk where if there's text on the screen I'm drawn to that at the exclusion of pretty much everything else going on on screen. What would be great is if they could matrix them in somehow and then give people glasses that allow them to see the captions, while it would be invisible to everyone else, or maybe there could be dedicated seats in the back couple rows with a special transparent display that shows the captions like the teleprompter things politicians use. Or they could just have
Or...for everyone? (Score:2)
Granted, I haven't been in a movie theater in years, because the experience has become imho unpleasant. But I do watch the odd movie at home, and often I cannot understand parts of the dialogue. In action scenes, the explosions drown out the actors; in love scenes, the actors are speaking to softly. In lots of cases they are just speaking too fast, like they have some weird time limit to get their lines out.
The loudness/softness is a bit strange. In the music world, everything has been flattened: lots of
One weekend too late! (Score:2)
Here I just spent good money to see Dune in the theater (figured this movie would be worth it), but only made out about 2/3 of the spoken words due to the atrocious sound mix. Subtitles would have been welcome throughout.
And may that "BWAAH!!" sound meet a swift and years overdue death while we're at it.
AMC has apparently already been doing this... (Score:2)
AMC has been doing this for a while with a few of their movies in my hometown of Huntsville, AL. "Dune" has a 6:10pm showing today with "Open Subtitles".
AMC also shows non-English language movies with subtiles, they played "Titane" here with subtitles for over a week.
Ger/Fra En movie (Score:2)
So, for the privilege
Meh (Score:2)
Nice sentiment, but while
Only for select showings! (Score:2)
Note that the linked article (yes, I may have to turn in my /. membership card for looking at it) says:
As long as such showings are really clearly designated, what's the problem?
I personally, in general, dislike open captioning as I end up reading the words and taking my attention off of the rest of the screen so miss li
My daughter would love this (Score:2)
Much to my chagrin, my teenage daughter prefers to turn on subtitles (closed captioning) when she watches movies. I find it crazy-making, but I think it helps her stay focused on the movie.
Re: Wait for it... (Score:3)
I'm illiterate you insensitive clod!
Re: Wait for it... (Score:5, Informative)
Though I'm firmly in the "subbed > dubbed" camp when it comes to foreign media, I appreciate that there's an argument to be made for them taking you out of the film by forcing you to parse additional visual information, or, if nothing else, by distracting you from what's happening on-screen in the case that you don't use them.
That said, this is an issue that opera houses have been dealing with for years and have largely already addressed satisfactorily:
1. Some opera houses have screens built into each seat back. You have the option to turn the screen on if you want, and sometimes even select from a variety of languages for the subtitles. And because the screens use privacy glass or are otherwise shielded, you're the only one with a clear view of the screen in front of you, ensuring that others aren't distracted by your choices regarding the display.
2. Other opera houses have a projection screen that they've placed outside the visual framing of the stage. Oftentimes appearing over the stage with subtitles displayed using fairly low light, it allows people who need subtitles to have them while permitting others to focus on the performance. The subtitles are dim enough that they basically disappear into one's peripheral vision if you aren't looking for them, much the same way that your brain filters out the house lights. A similar tack could be taken with films in theaters, rather than putting the subtitles directly within the frame of the film.
Re: Wait for it... (Score:2)
Opera tickets >>>> Movie Tickets
I can't imagine building screens into seat backs, the 'dine-in' theaters I frequent have steep inclines, so the seat backs for the row in front of me is down by my knees,
I bet, if you thought about it real hard, you could come up with a solution that involves smart phones and a real big QR code on the screen before the movie started.
Re: (Score:3)
Damn straight. Please publish captions so I can avoid it. I hate the distraction as you keep looking down.
It's also why I prefer dubbing to translations. It's a visual medium, and "you're missing the original actors' speaking skills" is a pretentious concern.
Re:Wait for it... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's where you're wrong.
"dubs" cost money. Hence the correct way to watch all foreign content is with subtitles.
Most "dubs" of films and tv shows in foreign markets are lower quality than english dubs. Russian dubs, don't even try to remix the audio, they just loudly talk over the existing audio. The highest quality dubs in the West are by Disney, and even then they are significantly less diverse than Japanese dubs, where most productions have an an unique VA for everyone. Dubs by everyone else in the west, just pick either the cheapest option of the same 4 voice actors for everyone in the film, or celebrity voices to try and "sell" the film better.
But overall english dubs, particularly of TV shows targeted at children, are substantially worse experiences, and Netflix had to figure this out after botching the Pretty Cure (Glitter Force) dub.
Even then, you have stuff like Squid Game, where the dub and the captions of the dub are substantially poorer than the english subtitles with the Korean audio.
So unless you're needing to do work and not actively watch something on a TV, you're better off with the subtitled version of pretty much everything. English dubs are for children and those who can't read the subtitles like those with vision loss.
Re: (Score:3)
Russian dubs, don't even try to remix the audio, they just loudly talk over the existing audio.
actually that is so ingrained into Russian expectations now that many of them find the idea of "western style dubbing" to be inferior
one reason being that similar to subtitles, with Russian style dubs you can still hear the original voices and the emotion/inflection the original actors put into their performance, something that is also pointed at as to why subtitles are superior to dubs
Re: (Score:2)
Russian dubs, don't even try to remix the audio, they just loudly talk over the existing audio.
actually that is so ingrained into Russian expectations now that many of them find the idea of "western style dubbing" to be inferior
You guys drive me nuts. While there is some truth to this that there are some older people who are exactly like this, since the fall of the Soviet Union, Russians (and Ukrainians and Belarussians) have long been used to Hollywood movies with quite proper Russian language dubs that don't feature the talking over stuff. I suspect if one were to take a poll that most people favor the current method of proper dubs over the talk overs. The talking over really sucked and I don't get why people actually like
Re: (Score:2)
Another problem with dubs is the lower number of voice actors used. I watch a lot of German content, which included dubbed stuff from the US. There is this one German voice actor who must have some sort of monopoly, because you here his voice everywhere. Different actors all have the same voice - that's annoying as hell.
On top of that, German uses more syllables than the equivalent English, so the dubs are always rushed, which makes them sound unnatural. Imagin an entire film as one giant run-on sentence.
Re: (Score:2)
So unless you're needing to do work and not actively watch something on a TV, you're better off with the subtitled version of pretty much everything. English dubs are for children and those who can't read the subtitles like those with vision loss.
I'm sorry, but I can't enjoy a movie if I have to read subtitles. A large part of movie enjoyment is the action that's taking place on the screen, and there's no way to do that and read the captions at the same time. I'd rather read a book than watch a movie with subtitles.
Re: (Score:3)
That's where you're wrong.
"dubs" cost money. Hence the correct way to watch all foreign content is with subtitles.
So are you doing subtitles for free? You may want to let the movie studios know so they can save some money. 8^)
I'll just assume you meant that dubs cost more money than subtitles.
Re: (Score:2)
Problem with dubs is they are more likely to be phoned in, in various ways.
Most obviously, a low cost dub job will have either people just reading the script without acting, or, perhaps worse, trying to act when they really don't have the talent for it.
Apart from that, the audio engineering in a dub track is frequently crap. Regardless of environment or position, all speakers have same volume and same overly 'clean' sound to it, where it's just playing straight from what was captured by microphone without
Re: (Score:2)
For live action, it's really rough because you'll *never* be able to dub to match the mouth movements, and it's distracting
In practice, yes, because it would be expensive. They will custom adjust lip syncing singing (e.g. in the La Bamba movie) so it isn't distracting.
But that's a long way from changing mouth movements to reflect a different language. Skipping the social issues, this won't happen anywhere until computers can do it on the fly. Which might not be that far off.
Someone should patent that. Send me 500k as that's all I need to retire, honor system.
Re: Wait for it... (Score:3)
Next argument from your side of the peanut gallery: "And what's the deal with these stupid black bars on my TV?"
Go away.
Re: (Score:2)
It's also why, in the overwhelming number of cass, dubbing just plain sucks. Listening to English speakers rolling out lines with no energy, not conviction, no emotion, just plain rote words, is a surefire way to kill enjoyment of the film/anime/whatever.
Re: (Score:3)
I find blinking text helps me read better. I hope everyone is cool with that.
Re: Wait for it... (Score:2)
Should they have "asian font" for characters speaking with an asian accent, gothic letters for characters speaking with a german accent, pseudo-cyrillic for russian accents, and stumbling-drunk animated letters for Irish accents?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know if this is normal, but I can't NOT read the subtitles. If they're there, my brain makes me read them, and it is distracting from the show.
Subtitles were great when my kids were little. I could still watch TV while I was up with a wailing baby. Hey, this it a great idea! This will make it a lot easier to bring a baby to a movie theater!
Fine provided Clear Labelling (Score:2)
If some people need them then that's fine just as long as the version with subtitles is clearly advertised so that those of us who do not want them can avoid
Re: Wait for it... (Score:2)
I have no problem with the subtitles. But like, TFS says, these are also for non-native English speakers. So those titles had better be in Sanskrit. Or I'm filing a complaint.
Seriously, one thing I've noticed is that some foreign speakers absolutely do not tolerate subtitling. It's either dubbed into their language or they are walking out.
Re: (Score:2)
Damn right. Reason #321 to not go to movie theaters.
What about people who can't read?
What people people who can't read whatever language the titles are in?
But sure - go ahead and inconvenience the VAST majority of people because a TINY FRACTION of people are unhappy with the accommodation already made for them. Sure
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see anything in TFS or TFA indicating that it would be applied to every showing. The VAST majority of viewers should be able to pick a showing without captions if they want to.
Re: Wait for it... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If they were doing it for every showing of every movie, then you'd have a point.
If they're doing it for certain showings, and publicize it clearly so that it's easy to know if a showing is open captioned so you can avoid it if you don't like it, what's the problem? Just don't go to the showing that you don't like.
"No captions for anyone" is just as bad as "Captions for everyone"
Re: (Score:2)
As you say, it's good to have a variety of showings catering to different preferences. Along with captioned showings, I've seen advertised lights-up, talking ok, lower volume, and so forth. Frankly it's required to attempt to compete with cheap 70" screens at homes.
Both sides [Re:uh yeah?] (Score:2)
I have mixed feelings. Sometimes I just can't follow the dialogue, either because the sound quality is muddy, or the actors mumble or have a dialect I can't follow, and captions are nice.
On foreign films, I usually DO prefer subtitles to dubbing-- that bit you write about how you want to see "trained humans saying lines written by Harvard graduates, with exact timing"... well, if it's a foreign film, and you really want to hear those actors with their exact timing-- then you have to listen to the original.
Re: (Score:2)
How would you do that with polarization?
People without glasses would get light with all polarities, people with glasses would only get the light with the correct polarity.
So, it would work the opposite of what you are trying to achieve. You'd have the open captions for everyone, but those that want the
How 2 [Re:Both sides [Re:uh yeah?]] (Score:2)
How would you do that with polarization? People without glasses would get light with all polarities, people with glasses would only get the light with the correct polarity.
You got it. Project the film R polarized, except you project the part of the image with the caption text as L polarized. Viewers who don't wear polarized glasses don't see one polarization as different from the other, so to them the caption text is identical to the rest of the film. People wearing L-blocking glasses see the captions in black text.
But the film is dim (you're only projecting half the light). And you have to make sure to position the text to a spot where the background is not black
Re: (Score:2)
In the first case, that is an issue with the production company. If they can't get the actors voices clear enough for people to hear what is being said, that's on them.
The second case is on both the production company and the actor. The company should be able to hear the mumbling and go back to the actor and have them more clearly pronounce their words. Liste
Re: (Score:2)
"If/when I mumble, people ask me to repeat myself. Which I do in a more clear and concise manner. And I'm not getting paid to do it. If I can do it, so can the actors."
And may I point out that often these actors are getting paid millions.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm from a country too small for dubbing to be worth the expense, hence everything is shown with original audio and subtitles.
Here's the thing about subtitles. When you grow up with them, when they're what you've known your entire life, you don't notice them as being anything weird. They just ARE.
You, on the other hand, are just an anonymous coward who won't even stand by your opinion that the disabled need to suck it up and go away where you won't notice they exist.
Re: (Score:2)
No problem. Once you go deaf... just read the subtitles. Another example of big business looking out for the little guy.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see anything in TFS or TFA that indicates they're planning to do it for every showing, so you should be able to easily find one that doesn't have captions.