Do you prefer to watch your anime with English subtitles or dubbed in English?

I definitely prefer subtitles- I'm hardly ever happy with the english voice acting, and I've watched enough anime and foreign films that I sometimes forget the subtitles are there. On many an occasion I've thought back to moments I liked and I remember them as if the characters said their lines in English.

Yeah. With languages I'm at least familiar with hearing-like japanese,chinese, french or spanish -, I tend to forget that it's something I don't understand. But I remember one time, I saw a dutch(I think) film(Karakter, it's on my very small list of favorites) and the language was so jarring when the movie started. But by the end, it seemed completely natural, and that was actually the first time I actually noticed the "forget that it's subtitled thing".

note: Me and my friends were part of a foreign films club in high school. We were laughing very often at the film while everyone else in the club was remaining quiet, so the teacher that headted the club thought we didn't appreciate it and pulled us to the side to ask what we thought after it ended.

I've recently been able to compare just this topic with .hack//SIGN and I'd have to say I prefer the subbed version. I had originally seen the Cartoon Network dubs then after seeing the subs I watched a dubbed again and was like WTF. Even though certain translations get confusing, the voice acting is a lot better in Japanese. Dubbed may be easier to watch but Subbed keeps the integrity of the original piece.

Nah. I like my animes in their ethnic language. Plus with English subtitles. Dont mind me, but I think that english-dubbed anime sound very gay.

Subbed, because even if the acting is bad, it's harder to notice. ;)

I don't really mind :)

Originally posted by mrmonkeyman
I don't really mind :)


...But I would if I were speaking Japanese. I don't like to watch american movies in any other languages than English and I don't like to watch Quebec or France movies in any other languages than French. So if I would speak Japanese I would simply watch it in Japanese without any subtitles at all.

No matter what you say, you HAVE to notice the subtitles because otherwise you wouldn't understand what is said. And that implies that it may reduce your likeness of noticing even the smallest detail in the art or background. That explains why I tend, if possible, to watch an anime dubbed first, so that when I view it the second time ( and even others if I liked it ) I can watch it in Japanese with subtitles that are closer to the original version's meaning.

Saying that Japanese voice acting is better when you don't understand Japanese is talking about something you know nothing about. I never talk about something unless I know at least a little about it, because that would show you're an ignorant fool, but that doesn't seem to be the majority's case.

Plus you are kind of lame if you say that all voice actors that work in your language ( for example : most english speakers who say english voice acting is always bad ) are bad. You're kind of shooting yourself in the foot because you're also implicitely saying that you would do a better job...and that's quite unlikely.

That's just a little food for thoughts, though. I'm not aiming at anyone in particular.

You're kind of shooting yourself in the foot because you're also implicitely saying that you would do a better job...and that's quite unlikely.

It isn't implicitly saying that at all. Likewise, saying that you "don't notice the subtitles" doesn't mean that you read them... without reading them... it simply means they don't serve as a distraction to observing the film.
Likewise, if someone doesn't understand a language doesn't mean they are unable to judge the voice acting. It simply means they are unable to tell what the people mean... which is cleared up by the subtitles. The acting, and the nature of emotion in the very least is understood, and can be picked up regardless of knowing what is being said. You are given the performance, which can be understood and judged, albeit not with the clarity of a language you are fluent in, and you are also given the dialogue, which you can apply to the voice, and that's all you need. There's absolutely no reason to presume that someone has absolutely no basis for judging acting in any way since they don't know the language, unless you're being ignorant and talking about things you don't blabbideebla gafune.

They can pass judgement on the english voice acting. They can determine that it is the suck. Then, in the only manner they're capable, they can pass judgement on the japanese voice acting, and while the list of flaws they can notice is smaller(try and get someone to catch awkward emphasises on words- it's likely only possible in extremely exxagerated circumstances. ) there is still enough there for them to pass comparative judgement against the english, and understand that this is not something people tend to care enough about to create a margin of error for their judgement to maintain accuracy.

Originally posted by rezo


It simply means they are unable to tell what the people mean... which is cleared up by the subtitles. The acting, and the nature of emotion in the very least is understood, and can be picked up regardless of knowing what is being said.


Sorry, but I disagree. But before I tell you why, I would like to ask you a question, Rezo : Do you speak any other languages than English ? Because I speak French and I can tell you that there subtle enough differences in the tone of the two languages. And I believe that you ought to know as well if you're at least bilingual. In fact, it's enough to let you know that unless you're fluent ( That means being able to have a discussion about whatsoever subject with whatsoever person, not just being able to ask your way or ask what time it is. ) in the language you're listening to, you can't be 100% sure than the voice acting is good. What you say is enough to give you a good idea is an IMPRESSION, not a PERFECTLY ACCURATE idea of the quality of the voice acting.

originally posted by me:
You are given the performance, which can be understood and judged, albeit not with the clarity of a language you are fluent in, and you are also given the dialogue, which you can apply to the voice, and that's all you need.


originally posted by me:
They can pass judgement on the english voice acting. They can determine that it is the suck. Then, in the only manner they're capable, they can pass judgement on the japanese voice acting, and while the list of flaws they can notice is smaller(try and get someone to catch awkward emphasises on words- it's likely only possible in extremely exxagerated circumstances. ) there is still enough there for them to pass comparative judgement against the english, and understand that this is not something people tend to care enough about to create a margin of error for their judgement to maintain accuracy.


It's like you didn't read my post AT ALL.edit:And I only speak english. (Emphasis on at all is due to the influence of reading Dinosaur Comics)

Originally posted by rezo




It's like you didn't read my post AT ALL


Wrong. It's like I don't agree with it AT ALL. You're saying what little impression you have of an unknown language-based voice acting gives you a good enough idea of the thing while I say it doesn't. It's that simple.

And, yes, I believe the fact you only speak one language makes you not realize my point. Which I can't blame you for, though. If I'd only speak English I'd probably think the same thing you are.

In fact, that's what I USED to think when I started learning English (because it's not my first language, French is). I used to think English voice acting was always good and French voice acting was always bad. But once I got fluent enough in English to be considered fluent in two languages I came to realize I actually was wrong. Because when I kept hearing myself speaking both languages and switching back and forth from another I came to realize I wasn't using the exact same tones because both languages aren't using the exact same tones and aren't exactly expressing the same emotions the exact same way. I came to the conclusion I used to believe English voice acting was always better than French voice acting only because I was "fascinated" by this language I didn't master but would have wanted to.

I guess what I'm saying is that it's the case with most (but of course NOT ALL) people who are like "english dub sucks" and "japanese rocks". They just haven't realized it yet.

Wrong. It's like I don't agree with it AT ALL.

I said that you didn't read my post because you were arguing against me with things I already said and agreed with, which is terribly confusing.

When I say that people can't get the nature of another spoken with the same clarity as their own, and that they can't discern awkward emphasises on words(because they don't rightly know where the emphasis should be since they don't speak the language) it does not make sense to respond by telling me that intonations are different in different languages and that because of someone's lack of understanding in one that they can only form an impression of the quality of acting in one language and not a perfectly accurate judgement. So I didn't particularly see the disagreement you alluded to,and still don't. Even with your latest post you're re-affirming the same things I already understand.

I was never stupid enough to actually think that voice actors in one language were magically better than others, and if you did, it's great that learning another language helped you eventually learn to know better. I did hear remarkably poor voice acting in many english dubs similar to what you get with terrible acting in the video games, and when I listened to the japanese tracks, I did not get the same problems. Unless the japanese way to shout in anger is to calmly say someone's name at a volume slightly above average, then the japanese actor did a better job than the english actor who did the very same thing. Recognizing that has very little to do with critical analysis of speech. I'm not going to become confused at what someone means or what their emotions are when they switch to a dialect I'm unfamiliar with.

Unless that cockney accent is absurdly off, I'm not going to pick up on the accuracy, but that's jut the way it is.Now, when I hear french, since my entire family speaks the language, I have a general idea of the sound of it, and can usually tell the nature of a sentence when I hear it. Presumably I'm familiar with recognizing sounds related to whichever dialect my parents speak. I'm guessing it's far off from whatever goes on in France since that's not where they're from.

When I hear japanese, I can understand the sentence structure and the nature of primary inflections(not sure of hte wording, but the opposite of subtle). I can get the difference between verb forms and honorifics used in terms as well as what sort of character they may be associated with and so I can get a little more from that than what the subtitles deliver, and though adapted from live action have an idea of how they ought to sound. I can recognize an "american" accent in the language, which I could only appreciate after someone telling me that they always "sound the same". Now, if I were to hear German, I would be able to get none of that. An American speaking German might as well be an ace at the language as far I can tell off hand. The same goes for many many other languages. Still, there's a scale there. On the bottom, you only go with what you know which is still quite a bit, and at the top you're entirely fluent in a language as well as from the environment being portrayed in whatever you're considering. To say that you absolutely have to be at the top to make a comparison is ludicrous.

But without any of that, You still have the basic idea of what is being said, both through the voice, and through the visual of the acting. I trust most everyone that speaks a particular language to know how to pronounce their own words properly. For the most part I don't have problems with American voice acting on American works at all(at the top of my head, I can't come up with an example of bad acting-though I know I've thought it while watching something), and interestingly enough, the few projects I know of directly where it was obvious that a lot of work was put into the acquiring and using the VAs(usually from money thrown at it), I've thought it was fine as well. There have been japanese VAs and actors that I didn't like the performance of. Implied with judging based on "impressions" is that I do actually make a judgement and not just an arbitrary pass of one over the other. the arbitrary pass comes in when I choose which language to watch a film in. I always go for the original language, and tend to watch dubs with friends.

There. I seriously don't think there's much of a disagreement in whatever you were going on about earlier, and if there was I'll presume it was from any sort of misunderstanding. But there's a whole lot of text about what I do think on the subject, since I'm not doing anything before going out in 30 minutes, so maybe you can find a lot to disagree with there.

Originally posted by rezo


I said that you didn't read my post because you were arguing against me with things I already said and agreed with, which is terribly confusing.



What's exactly that I am arguing you with that you agree already ? I'm the one who's confused.


Originally posted by rezo

When I say that people can't get the nature of another spoken with the same clarity as their own, and that they can't discern awkward emphasises on words(because they don't rightly know where the emphasis should be since they don't speak the language) it does not make sense to respond by telling me that intonations are different in different languages and that because of someone's lack of understanding in one that they can only form an impression of the quality of acting in one language and not a perfectly accurate judgement. So I didn't particularly see the disagreement you alluded to,and still don't. Even with your latest post you're re-affirming the same things I already understand.



*points to my previous post*


Originally posted by Evad D'Aragon


You're saying what little impression you have of an unknown language-based voice acting gives you a good enough idea of the thing while I say it doesn't. It's that simple.



It can't get any more simple. That's exactly where we disagree on.


Originally posted by rezo

I was never stupid enough to actually think that voice actors in one language were magically better than others, and if you did, it's great that learning another language helped you eventually learn to know better.


Woah, woah, woah ! That means "I" am the stupid one ? Just kidding. Where exactly did I say they were "magically" better ? I was just doing what most of "anime-experts-who-dish-english-voice-acting-but-suck-on-japanese-with-english-subtitle-voice-acting" do. I thought they were better because I thought they SOUNDED better based on IMPRESSION, not FACT.


Originally posted by rezo

There's absolutely no reason to presume that someone has absolutely no basis for judging acting in any way since they don't know the language, unless you're being ignorant and talking about things you don't blabbideebla gafune.


That's the precise part where I don't agree, if you aren't fluent in a language you're in no position to comment on the quality of voice-acting. Period.


Originally posted by rezo

To say that you absolutely have to be at the top to make a comparison is ludicrous.


I once again disagree to some degree. Because you're comparing apples and oranges. You're comparing voice-acting in a language you're fluent at and voice-acting in a language you aren't. That's where my gripe is.


Originally posted by rezo

When I hear japanese, I can understand the sentence structure and the nature of primary inflections(not sure of hte wording, but the opposite of subtle).


That is what you THINK but how exactly can you know for a FACT if you don't speak the language ? That's impossible unless you're fluent in the language.


Funny how it is we already had this conversation on the Shrine, anyway. And as "fate" would have had it, it might have been exactly between the two of us. I should check out the archives because I definitely remember having this argument with someone here.

EDIT : Here's the other thread :

http://forums.ffshrine.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7428&perpage=20&highlight=dubbed%20or%20subbed&pagenumber=1

And it was Chihuadog and Fujin with who I argued with. "This time" it wasn't you Rezo ;) That's a nice change. ;)

Just my two cents in the middle of this huge discussion - I haven't read all of what d'Aragon and rezo have posted, so don't think this is a reply to any of their threads :p

I find it depends on the Anime - for instance, I first saw Evangelion on TV dubbed, and I got to know the characters with their American voices. Later on, when I got the DVD with the Japanese voices, I watched it subtitled, and it didn't effect me as much - I couldn't recognise anyone, and it was almost as if the characters were different.

On the other hand, I saw Metropolis at the movies subbed, and when I bought the DVD I watched the dubbed version, and it was no-where near as good. The same goes for Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (not an anime I know, but a subbed movie none-the-less :p).

It comes down to what you're used to, I guess :D

Originally posted by ExS


It comes down to what you're used to, I guess :D

It makes sense, in a way. But I don't think it's that simple.


Oh, and I guess you COULD have read our posts, ExS. More input can always be interesting.

That is what you THINK but how exactly can you know for a FACT if you don't speak the language ? That's impossible unless you're fluent in the language.


You don't learn the particular intonations or dialects someone that uses a certain language uses when you learn the language. If that's your angle, you would have to know the language as well as having done so in the same manner as the person you're hearing. I have no idea how to modify my english into a southern or New York accent, based on the rudimentary impressions of people I've met from there, but I can still understand the nature of what they're saying based on how they say it even if the manner in which they're saying it might as well be foreign to me.

I "think" those are the inflections they put on because those are the inflections that I hear them actually use. I know at least in part when one is supposed to be used based on what I've studied. When you end a sentence in japanese in a question, the pitch raises. If you don't implicitly say that something ends in a question, then the inflection can indicate it, so in this manner something has a "Question" sound to it, even though the sentence may not be an actual question literally, you can catch the "question" sound. You do not need to know the language to do this. Likewise, if a question is asked deadpan, it'll come off odd, and when it's being asked in such a manner usually there's a visual cue as to why it's said that way. Each syllable in a word is given the same amount oftime when a word is being said. So while someone may read "kaRA-te", in japanese it's just "ka ra te", so if someone were to extend certain syllables longer in normal controlled speech, it would sound odd.Like someone that wasn't japanese was saying it. You don't need to know that language to catch this. You may miss when a word has an extra vowel in it which gives a similar result, but that's just understanding within your limits, and in the very least your limits are greater at such a point than if it's your first time hearing something. If you don't know a language, but you know where a voice "rises" at the beginning of a sentence, and where it falls on the verb, and you can place all of those points in the spoken sentence, then you can understand them to a degree that is less than someone that is fluent, but certainly beyond someone with no idea at all. And beyond someone with sort of an idea, and less than someone that speaks rather well, etc etc


Where I thought we agreed earlier? You were telling me that someone couldn't make a perfectly accurate judgement of acting if they didn't know the language, based on their limits such as not being acquainted with particular intonations and that they simply don't understand the other language with the same clarity they do their own, all of which I had mentioned in some form in the post you were responding to. Meaning there was no reason to say any of that. Hence the confusion.

You said that you believed English voice acting was always better. If you were taking english and voice acting as a whole as being entirely better than French as it read in your previous post then that would be stupid and you're better for no longer thinking it. If you only formed comparative opinions and simply worded it poorly- or I simply read it poorly - than that is entirely different. Though the main point is that when someone makes a quick statement classifying blanket groups of people as stupid or some such, it's always fun to spin it.


It can't get any more simple. That's exactly where we disagree on.

And I said that someone(I'm totally not going to check my old posts when I say this) could determine that they don't like the English dub due to their judgement of it, and they can determine that they do like the foreign language version better based on their limited understanding of how it works or is used. If they like it "better" or "prefer" it over the english, then they consider it "better" and I don't see what's wrong with saying so. It's not terribly different function than " I'd like to hear this language more since I prefer it in relation to the other albeit I am not as familiar with it comparatively." If they want to be accurate, they can create a margin of error of some sort to determine whether or not they will actually prefer the foreign language with even more knowledge, but very few people will actually care to do so, as they simply don't care, and I don't think it's a big enough issue to ask it of them. I'm not going to get into the issue of what is based on fact at all. I don't see how it applies. Some fluent fellow may enjoy your factually poor acting moreso than you did your favored choice, and while you may wonder why they enjoyed so many awkwardly put sentences, they may simply think it fit the character more.

I prefer to hear the things I watch in my language because I'm too lazy to read the subtitles. When I'm reading, I don't take in the words. I have to read each line at least 2 times until I fully understand what's going on. What ticks me off is when they edit the pictures.

Originally posted by rezo


If they want to be accurate, they can create a margin of error of some sort to determine whether or not they will actually prefer the foreign language with even more knowledge, but very few people will actually care to do so, as they simply don't care, and I don't think it's a big enough issue to ask it of them. I'm not going to get into the issue of what is based on fact at all. I don't see how it applies. Some fluent fellow may enjoy your factually poor acting moreso than you did your favored choice, and while you may wonder why they enjoyed so many awkwardly put sentences, they may simply think it fit the character more.

But that's totally thinking illogically. You're saying you realize it "may" be worse but just because it "fits" the character more you'll like it more.That's complete nonsense. Just because a voice "fits" to your opinion doesn't make the acting "good".

Sure, it's all in the opinions, and you should not have to explain why. But sometimes just because people are entitled to their opinions isn't that much of a good reason either.

And how it is people think the voice "fits" ? What backgrounds are they standing on to say that ? How should they know ? They don't know the goddamn language ! No matter what you have said, you still haven't convinced me that unless you have some good level of a language you can judge on the quality of the voice-acting.

The part about the different "accents" is totally irrelevant. I do not speak "France's French", rather "Qu�bec's French" but nonetheless they are, gramatically speaking, the same language. That means I have a strong enough basis to judge the voice-acting in supposedly called "France's French".

And about that "voice fits" the character : that's sad, but in real life people are stuck with the voice they have, whether it supposedly "fit" them or not. Why should that be different in movies ? Because it's not reality and it should always fit ? Nonsense. The "voice fits" argument is lame.

They are grammatically similar. American English is not grammatically the same as England's - perhaps formally but even then I don't know since I don't know what if the standards for formal English in America is handled by the same institution that would bother with such things in England.

If you're talking about merely garnering the meaning of what someone says because you understand the language, than that has absolutely nothing to do with being privy to the "correct" intonations, inflections or anything of the sort. I could say the sentence

"How now brown cow"

in a variety of accents with a variety of intonations and they would all be english, and they would all be correct.

You- being an english speaker - would be entirely ignorant of all of them regardless of knowing the language unless you came across them yourself. And using your knowledge from interacting with such people, you would have formed an idea of how it is supposed to sound. But how would you know that was the correct sound of a particular dialect? You wouldn't, unless you were from the same environment as the speaker and in a sense used it yourself. Simply knowing the language does not make you privy to such knowledge. Some people learn spanish from people that were only taught spanish, and while they may eventually become fluent, the spanish they speak and are familiar with will be that of people that speak it in a heavy english accent. If that is the case, will they be able to pick up the particular intonations of the spanish spoken in mexico by simply knowing the same language? Will they be able to pick up and judge with striking perfection the dialects used in Spain? No. That is entirely seperate from merely learning the language. They are given a guide to pronunciation and things of that sort but with even a moderate regional change those sort of thing change drastically, and if we're able to understand voice acting based primarily on our ability to pick up the particulars of intonations, then someone who has noticed a change in his own personal use of the language would not be able to project that onto someone else as if it were a universal standard and pass judgement.

Where the person watching the language he doesn't understand would have to say:

I cannot understand what he says
I cannot understand how he says it

You would have to say:

I can understand what he says
I cannot understand how he says it

While you can get a general impression of how they're saying what, you do not have the knowledge to deign say that they are speaking correctly. You can criticize the grammar but that's a criticism of the writing and it's a fact that some people speak with incorrect grammar, and if such a person was in a film he ought to speak with incorrect grammar as well. But that only deals with the meaning. So, obviously, you get to watch a french or english film without having the garner meaning from the subtitles. As for how it is said, once again, if you are not perfectly capable of reproducing the dialect you're hearing, then you cannot be critical of the manner in which things are said, since the manner in which things are said is based on the dialect you are hearing. You would be in no place to pass judgement on the acting if you believe that the true value of Voice Acting can only be gained once you understand a language and can pick up the particulars of intonation, since the former is not directly related to the latter.
Am I to look down on that New Yorkers accent simply because he drops the "r" at the end of "car"? No, in itself there's nothing wrong with that. In acting, the only time that would be a problem is if the New Yorker was playing someone that would pronounce the "r" at the end. Say, a midwestern person. And if you're unfamiliar with that particular eastern dialect as well as a particular midwestern one you'd have no idea. Now then, a friend of mine criticized the acting of a particular person in the movie Underworld(really bad movie), because even though he was supposed to be a thousands+ years old and lived in Europe, he spoke with a sort of foppish Californian accent. In a similar example, take the movie "Mickey Blue Eyes". Do you think that someone who doesn't speak english will be unable to recognize the differences in the dialects used by Hugh Grant in comparison to the various mobtypes in the movie?


And about that "voice fits" the character : that's sad, but in real life people are stuck with the voice they have, whether it supposedly "fit" them or not. Why should that be different in movies ? Because it's not reality and it should always fit ? Nonsense. The "voice fits" argument is lame.

Oh my mistake. I meant the "Acting" fit the character. Since the difference in voice we were talking about wasn't the sound or pitch but manner in which they spake, I thought this was apparent. In storytelling, the priority is that the actor stays true to the character and not the language. So it makes perfect sense for someone's acting to fit the character, even if it may not be "correct whatever language" to you. Which is why some flamboyantly melodramatic performances involving weird drawn out speech work in the context of melodramatic characters, but melodramatic stories in themselves are poor, to me. Someone else may enjoy them.

And because of my badass prescience I totally said that the person that thought the particular voice fit was fluent, to pre-empt some of the things you may say involving him not being, but you said them anyways.

gah. I don't understand this argument at all.

You certainly don't need to be able to understand a language to understand the tone, or the emotions conveyed in what they are saying. If someone says something excitely, they're going to sound excited to me no matter what language that they're speaking in.

Just to give an example......I'm in love with Rei Tanaka, the voice actress who plays Chii in Chobits. Her acting made me fall in love with Chii- she made the character so sweet and lovable. I wanted to hug Chii after every little thing she said.

If you watch it dubbed, the actress reads the lines like a brain dead robot. There's no emotion in anything she says. It doesn't suit Chii at all. Even if it did, it's just plain bad acting.

And as for forgeting about the subtitles.....I'm sure on some level I notice they're there, but it's not something I think about while I'm watching the anime. When I think back to lines, I hear them in my head as if they were said in English.

Originally posted by Ndi


You certainly don't need to be able to understand a language to understand the tone, or the emotions conveyed in what they are saying. If someone says something excitely, they're going to sound excited to me no matter what language that they're speaking in.

If you watch it dubbed, the actress reads the lines like a brain dead robot. There's no emotion in anything she says. It doesn't suit Chii at all. Even if it did, it's just plain bad acting.


Do you speak any other language than English ? If no, then I understand why you believe that. The French and English languages aren't entirely the same with it comes to the tone or emotions conveyed. And they're both latin-based language. Japanse NOT being a latin-based language, one can only presume there are AT LEAST about the same kinds of difference. Unlike "judging" a voice-acting in a language you don't know which is based on presumption, my last sentence was based on fact.

And what would "suit" Chii ? As I said, the "suit" or "fit" part is totally lame. In reality, you have the voice and tone you are stuck. Just because it's not reality doesn't make it any different. You may not like it but are in no position to say it doesn't "fit".


Originally posted by Rezo

Do you think that someone who doesn't speak english will be unable to recognize the differences in the dialects used by Hugh Grant in comparison to the various mobtypes in the movie?


Why, yes, exactly. They're different "dialects" but at the base the same language. How can you tell the difference if you can't even understand the backbone ? I don't even understand why you asked that question.


I don't understand why you're telling me I wouldn't be able to not judge an "New-Yorker" or a "Brit" since I don't know the "particular dialect". They're both English. That's enough. Of course, if the "New-Yorker" doesn't drop the accent when he has to play a "Brit" IS bad voice acting. Likewise, I thought Hugh Jackman did an awesome job as Wolverine because he didn't sound like a Brit in the X-Men movies.

You're telling that "You would be in no place to pass judgement on the acting if you believe that the true value of Voice Acting can only be gained once you understand a language and can pick up the particulars of intonation, since the former is not directly related to the latter." Well, guess what ? I disagree. They are the same language, the differences in intonation aren't subtle enough. If they wouldn't be the same grammatically speaking there would a subtle enough difference. That is not the case if you talk about a "Quebecer" and a "French, for instance.

The way I see it, if the voice sucks... the voice sucks.

With the freedom to really replace people's voices in an anime or to replace roles in a movie, they basically had an extremely large pallette to choose from. Unlike real life, we can all be in some huge ass ADVENTURE and my voice would be the nerdy type deal.... but ya know what? My voice sucks and there's nothing I can do about it. Anime and movies, whole different story. You can replace ANYONE with ANY ROLE until you get a decent voice actor or actor. I can't be replaced, my voice can't be replaced, I can't do anything about it. They can be replaced, their voices can be replaced, they had the power to do whatever they want about it.

We got to remember that even though anime is imported over here and the script is slightly modified, that does not mean that the emotion of the character should change AT ALL.

I'm Vietnamese, I don't understand Vietnamese but I can tell what emotions my mom and dad are when they are yelling at me in Vietnamese. Same with Japanese, I'm not fluent, I understand a bit of it, I can figure out that context on my own. It really doesn't matter about any other languages like french or what have you.

Lets take an example: Ever played Dynasty Warriors 3? The emphasis in the voice is EXTREMELY off. Who would want to say "When the gate opens, we will STOOOOOORRRRMM the castle"? That is just horrible, it shows no feeling of him wanting to "storm the castle". It felt like he was cumming in his pants while he way saying "storm".

Okay, basically what I'm saying is they had a good selection of voice actors to choose from and they just didn't do a good job. Hellsing had good dubbing, it's unfortunately that many others didn't get the same treatment. If I was fluent in Japanese and I judge anime in Japanese, I wouldn't say the voice acting is bad at all. You also need to remember the differences between a typical Japanese and typical American guy.

ahh..... now to look at hentai.... *_*

Originally posted by Evad D'Aragon
Do you speak any other language than English ? If no, then I understand why you believe that. The French and English languages aren't entirely the same with it comes to the tone or emotions conveyed. And they're both latin-based language. Japanse NOT being a latin-based language, one can only presume there are AT LEAST about the same kinds of difference. Unlike "judging" a voice-acting in a language you don't know which is based on presumption, my last sentence was based on fact.

I do indeed. I lived in Italy for a while when I was younger.

When a character is supposed to be angry, they sound angry to me, no matter what language I'm listening to it in. It's possible that I'm not getting the full range of emotions when I hear it in Japanese, yes. But if the English voice acting is terrible, then I'm certainly not getting it there either.


Originally posted by Evad D'Aragon
And what would "suit" Chii ? As I said, the "suit" or "fit" part is totally lame. In reality, you have the voice and tone you are stuck. Just because it's not reality doesn't make it any different. You may not like it but are in no position to say it doesn't "fit".

The fact that it's not reality makes a difference to me. If a character is supposed to be a cute, sweet, innocent little girl, I don't want it to sound like a 40something lifelong smoker is talking when I watch the anime. And in most cases, it's not just the fact that the voice sounds completely wrong for the character- there is a lot of mind numblingly bad voice acting out there. It actually pains me to hear it sometimes- actors sound like they're reading right off the script.

Another thing I've noticed is that I often get a better translation when I watch a subtitled anime. I've seen all of Cowboy Bebop subtitled many times, and when I watch it dubbed on Adult Swim, I sometimes get frusterated because they mess up great lines.

Originally posted by Ndi



Another thing I've noticed is that I often get a better translation when I watch a subtitled anime. I've seen all of Cowboy Bebop subtitled many times, and when I watch it dubbed on Adult Swim, I sometimes get frusterated because they mess up great lines.

Hehehe, that's not really the translating team's fault though. The "correct" translation might not be the same length at all therefore not fitting in the same length of audio.

Originally posted by Evad D'Aragon


Hehehe, that's not really the translating team's fault though. The "correct" translation might not be the same length at all therefore not fitting in the same length of audio.

*nods*

I understand all of that. I just prefer getting the better translation.

They are the same language, the differences in intonation aren't subtle enough. If they

wouldn't be the same grammatically speaking there would a subtle enough difference.

The subtlety of differences in intonation is not based in grammar. You're just repeatedly saying "I

disagree" and then shuffling out claims. You could take the same exact sentence and give it to two

different people and they would say it in drastically different manners, and you're saying the

drastically different means of saying something are immaterial since what they're saying - which has

nothing to do with how they're saying it - is the same? That simply isn't true. Tell me why people are

confused by thick foreign accents. Watch the english dub of Voltes V and tell me that that intonations

are only subtlely different from what I use. Hell, it's an obscure example, so you should just be able to find any thickly accented english. Subtle differences may be between me- from California- and Larry- from Oregon, but now I'm in the south , and the differences are drastic enough for me to not be able to reproduce with any accuracy.Get farther from where I'm from and it tends to get worse. Do you know what you get from learning a language? You learn the meanings of the terms

in the language, and how to use them. This helps you understand the meanings of the terms the people

in the movies are using, and how they use them. This does not make you privy to a standard"english"

form of intonation, just because you happen to find yourself express things differently in one

language than another. A friend of mine was an exchange student in japan, and he spoke japanese in a

soft spoken voice. I asked him why, and he said, "well, I don't want to come off like the Cowboy that

just shouts out "WATASHI WA JIMU DESU." with a thick accent and looks like an ass. It doesn't mean

that by becoming soft spoken that he could say that japanese is a language that is soft spoken.
Do you know how you become familiar with intonations? Through hearing them. Someone that hears a

certain manner of speak gradually becomes accustomed to it. They don't learn the language and find an

instant path to getting every dialect out there since they're all "Subtlely similar". In fact, there

are plenty of people that learn a language in such a manner that they can't communicate with native

speakers because the differences in intonation- which are supposed to be so subtle that anyone that

knows the language should be able to get everything from everyone - is so great that they can't

understand each other.


Acting isn't in the grammar. If you need to hear "I am angry" to catch anger, you're missing the

point. If you're hearing anger in someone's voice, then it doesn't matter what they're saying. If you

think that by simply understanding a language you have such a clear view of emotional intonations

where you can make "perfect" judgements of their acting, it's another mistake.No one is saying that they are able to get everything from a language they don't understand, but to say that they can't tell differences between foreign dialects, or gauge emotion or anything else is wrong, and the examples of people doing exactly that ought to be enough to realize as much.



Subtitles are simplified as well, by the way, for much the same reason as dubs are- just in text form.

Originally posted by rezo


You're just repeatedly saying "I

disagree" and then shuffling out claims.


Sure, you haven't backed that up at all and of course YOU haven't been doing the exact same thing this entire thread. Shoot, what was I thinking...?


Originally posted by rezo


You could take the same exact sentence and give it to two

different people and they would say it in drastically different manners, and you're saying the

drastically different means of saying something are immaterial since what they're saying - which has

nothing to do with how they're saying it - is the same? That simply isn't true.


All WRONG. If you say "I'm gonna eat." and I say "I'm going to eat.", we both mean EXACTLY the same thing. And who's to say which one of us is "acting" better if they don't even know we're telling the same thing ? Your point here is worth nothing.


Originally posted by rezo

Do you know how you become familiar with intonations? Through hearing them. Someone that hears a

certain manner of speak gradually becomes accustomed to it. They don't learn the language and find an

instant path to getting every dialect out there since they're all "Subtlely similar". In fact, there

are plenty of people that learn a language in such a manner that they can't communicate with native

speakers because the differences in intonation- which are supposed to be so subtle that anyone that

knows the language should be able to get everything from everyone - is so great that they can't

understand each other.


(sarcasm)Thanks for stating the obvious about the "hearing them makes you learn them", you're really sounding as if I'm not smart enough to realize that.(/sarcasm)

As for the "you can't communicate with the natives" , well I can communicate with pretty much any Quebecer just fine even if they are , for instance, from the "Lac St-Jean". Their accent don't bother me at all. I've talked to some texans and eastern americans through voice chat and I could have a chat with them and understand accurately enough. Once again that's another lame argument on your part.


Originally posted by rezo

Acting isn't in the grammar. If you need to hear "I am angry" to catch anger, you're missing the

point. If you're hearing anger in someone's voice, then it doesn't matter what they're saying.

Then obviously you can't make out sarcasm. I just need to fake anger in my voice , say any crap and you'll believe I'm angry ? Wow, I didn't know you were THAT gullible Rezo. Yes, you need to hear "I am angry", perhaps not in those words, but you need to hear something that comes WITH the tone you hear. If you can't understand the language then the match-up is not complete. Oh, sure, the subtitles are there but even they might not an EXACT translation because you can't translate word by word and always make sense. Therefore unless you can understand what the person is saying and match it with the tone you hear you can't pass a good judgement on the voice acting. Thanks a lot for helping my cause Rezo.


You keep saying I just use the same arguments over and over again but so do you. I'm pretty much trying to say that we're reached the point where we each said to other everything we have to say and won't change our minds but I guess trying to make the other understand that is futile. So I'm saying it straight.

All WRONG. If you say "I'm gonna eat." and I say "I'm going to eat.", we both mean EXACTLY the same thing. And who's to say which one of us is "acting" better if they don't even know we're telling the same thing ? Your point here is worth nothing.

It is when you start out by saying that you're judging the differences in acting based on intonation which you seem to have completely ignored.

But here:


In fact, that's what I USED to think when I started learning English (because it's not my first language, French is). I used to think English voice acting was always good and French voice acting was always bad. But once I got fluent enough in English to be considered fluent in two languages I came to realize I actually was wrong. Because when I kept hearing myself speaking both languages and switching back and forth from another I came to realize I wasn't using the exact same tones because both languages aren't using the exact same tones and aren't exactly expressing the same emotions the exact same way. I came to the conclusion I used to believe English voice acting was always better than French voice acting only because I was "fascinated" by this language I didn't master but would have wanted to.


See, this is where all of that talk about how knowing a language doesn't mean you have a perfect understanding of how people speak it comes from, as well as the examples of the various dialects and such that use the language differently. You may use certain tones to express something in english just like my friend would use certain tones to express something in japanese, but that does not mean they can say their manner is the way of the universal english speaker , or the universal japanese speaker. Simple, right? No universal way exists that is in use. That's why I clarified the very obvious "what you get from learning a language", because it has nothing to do with judging intonation.



sarcasm
Anger or false anger is like satire. If done correctly- or, done in the way I enjoy it most - there is no difference in the presentation of the satire and what is being satirized. It's only noticed in the context of what is being said and perhaps the character of who is saying it, and so if someone was making a good satirical comment while fiegning anger, if they were good enough I would only be able to recognize it as anger based on an inherent absurdity in what they're angry about. So I would read anger, and then I would notice the circumstances he was being angry about and read the subtitles and then see how well he was pulling off his tirade based on a new assessment, or I would be oblivious for the same reason the various real life english speakers can never tell if I'm joking or serious since I joke around so incessantly that they can never be sure. If there was such a character in a movie, I seriously doubt it would be what he says that leads to understanding the nature of his actions.

Now you're just saying that by speaking the language which is in use that you understand it, which is what I said the subtitles accounted for way back on page one. It is not "the acting". I never said that the subtitles were a perfect translation of what was said. I said something contrary quite recently, as well as saying that you get more from understanding the language that the movie is spoken in. Everyone realizes this. However, you do get a translation of what they are saying, and you get all of the emotional presentation of how they are saying it, and combining the two(knowledge of what they're saying as well as being provided a definition of it) is used to judge the quality of the voice acting. Shouldn't be hard to understand, and the "acting" is delivered not in the words but through them. If I read "I am angry" on a subtitle, and don't hear an angry voice, then I can gather that anger is being expressed in another means, or not at all, just as someone that hears it would gather the same thing. You could take that same declaration of anger and present it in several different means, and it would be judged differently each time based on the means it is delivered it. The acting has clear priority over terms in understanding how something is being presented in a story. The dialogue is what is being presented, and not the how at all. The subtitled film watcher is being provided with both. What is being presented - through the translation - and how it's being provided through the acting. At worst you can say that "you are only capable of judging whether or not the actor delivered a line similar to the one you translated." And not anything near " they can have no idea of the quality of the voice acting because they don't know the language" since they are being provided with so much else to use, including a translation of the very meaning that they are missing. You may need to hear something that goes along with what they say, but that something could be translated as "I am happy" and if the person was acting angry I wouldn't doubt anyone's ability to pick it up.



Once again that's another lame argument on your part.


How so? I didn't use you as an example. Anecdotal evidence like what you provided has nothing to do with anyone else at all directly.

Originally posted by rezo

However, you do get a translation of what they are saying, and you get all of the emotional presentation of how they are saying it, and combining the two(knowledge of what they're saying as well as being provided a definition of it) is used to judge the quality of the voice acting.


Yeah, but what if the translation isn't accurate enough ? Very often, when you are translating you realize you can't go word by word. Believe me when I say that. Most languages won't use the equivalent of some words at the same place in the sentence. For instance french places the adjective AFTER the word unlike english where it is BEFORE. In example, in French it's a "auto verte" and in english it's a "green car". In this case they mean the same thing. But that can happen with pronouns too. If some pronouns are placed elsewhere in the sentence, at least sometimes it happens in french, they can have quite a different meaning.Therefore, there is always some meaning that gets lost in any translation whatsoever. That's most specifically because there is no perfect way to perfectly translate any text, what with the many synomyms any language has. And in some cases, while it may sound fine the way it is in Japanese it just makes no sense in English, even gramatically speaking. Therefore the subtitle might not be even what the other one said. And can you make sure if you don't know the language ? Well, you can't. You can only assume it's the closest that's possible, and that is IF the team that made the subtitles was professionnal enough. But let me remind you about one thing : It's most likely the very same team that scripted the dub you'd "so despise". So you have a script for subtitling and another for dubbing that was done by the same translators. So now because it's the subtitles and not dubbing they'd be professionals ? Yeah, well I don't think you'd be stupid enough to believe that but maybe you forgot for just a second. Here's another food for thoughts.

Therefore you can't use the subtitles to "match" them with the tone you hear. First of all because you don't know the language and don't know the subtles differences in the tones and second, because the subtitles might not exactly reflect the original sentence. They're just the closest that they can be, they're not an exact match.

And you haven't understand my point at all with "thinking that english was better when I didn't understand" part. Just because YOU didn't believe it was like that doesn't mean it's not the case with most people. And I never said it was my case either. It was an impression that I have, it had nothing to do with any "magic". Just stop using that part, it's no use.

That "part" seemed to be your original explanation of a "why", and most of what I responded to in there was not based on the magic that made you think every english voice was good and every french voice poor.


Yeah, but what if the translation isn't accurate enough ? Very often, when you are translating you realize you can't go word by word. Believe me when I say that

I'll stop you there.

from me:

Subtitles are simplified as well, by the way, for much the same reason as dubs are- just in text form.

or even better, from me several months ago from somewhere else regarding the same topic:

"
Oh yeah, regarding subtitles. The translators have to limit what they can say due to the time and space constraints they have for putting up and displaying the text. Often they'll go for summarizations of what was said as opposed to a fully nuanced translation."

I got that directly from someone that works on subtitles who was defending her craft after some people talked about how some things were often left out of lines.

And I'm saying all this again, to point out that I don't believe that translations are perfect. Japanese- for instance- has honor modifiers. So if I stick an "o" in front of a word, the definition of the term gets the "...with respect" line-or something similar- added to it's definition and so the translator is limited to finding something comparable that, though its Like you said, the translation could be literally correct, but the manner in which it was said in the original language would have a different connotation that someone who isn't aware won't be able to pick up. In japanese there's a modification to sentence endings which basically changes the connotation of the sentence to "with tough emphasis", and that's the best way I can put it. A translator can either change the format of the entire sentence to match such an emphasis, or add an extension to the end that gives a similar idea. One show I remember put the word "baby" at the end of each sentence because the fellow was pretending to act tough around his girlfriend. But he never actually called her baby.

And there are times when I can catch some of this with my limited knowledge, and so my impression of a particular line changes that little bit more.And I understand all of this. Which is why I've repeatedly said that a subtitle is not a perfect replacement for knowing a language, and that there is a definite loss in what someone gets from the acting if they don't know the language. Often times, a particular dialect in japanese is translated as a southern or new york or whatever else accent in the text. This sort of thing I think is very bad, because while simplifying something into a general idea is reasonable given the limits, this is an all out change in content which is similar to the assumption that it's ok to change a joke so long as you change it into something else that attempts to be funny. In that case I think it's best to let the dialect speak for itself and just translate it. I think if they hear it enough people will catch the switching of certain s's with h's in the Osakan dialect just like they can tell Hugh Grant is butchering mofioso speak in Mickey Blue Eyes even if they don't know english.


Therefore you can't use the subtitles to "match" them with the tone you hear. First of all because you don't know the language and don't know the subtles differences in the tones and second, because the subtitles might not exactly reflect the original sentence. They're just the closest that they can be, they're not an exact match.


Sure you can. If someone speaks with an angry tone or a cheerful one, it will be apparent. I don't believe people assume that all languages follow the same sentence structure as their own. I've already gone over why people can get what sort of emotion someone is conveying through their tone, and it isn't based on knowing the format of the sentence, and likewise, they get the brunt of the acting performance along with a translation of what the person is saying to form an opinion of the person's voice acting ability. While the japanese may be closer to "As for me -the market- went", I don't see any reason for someone that reads "I went to the market." to not be able to get whatever plainness of emotion and emphasis that goes along with how it was said, even if the words are presented all out of a familiar order.



IF the team that made the subtitles was professionnal enough. But let me remind you about one thing : It's most likely the very same team that scripted the dub you'd "so despise". So you have a script for subtitling and another for dubbing that was done by the same translators. So now because it's the subtitles and not dubbing they'd be professionals ?

Who is this directed towards? I don't recall "so despising" any dub scripts. But they're professionals by being paid for their work. As near as I understand it, dub scripts are intentionally modified for sake of demographic purposes, which aren't as stringent on subtitles. Which is why a joke or content is changed outright in a dub and it is more likely to be explained in a sort of liner note in a sub so that they don't have to change it or the translation will be more literal and disregard whether you know about that particular sort of abstract foreign knowledge or not. Not really sure of what you're going for here.





And you haven't understand my point at all with "thinking that english was better when I didn't understand" part.

Dude. You said that you learned english, and that before that you thought that all english voices were good, and all french voices were bad. That was a stupid thought. That "all english voices are good and all french voices are bad" thought. You also said that you had a fascination with the language. The only way that sort of thought would even begin to be reasonable would be if you changed the meaning. Which you did in a later post when you were suddenly not absurdly generalizing all english voices as great and all french as poor due to your fascination with the prior, but rather, due to the ignorance that comes with not knowing a language. None of this particularly matters. When I quoted that part in my last post I was mostly disregarding the section you're talking about. I never thought all english VAs were poor, nor have I thought all japanese VAs were good. There have always been dubs that I've liked ever since I began watching japanese shows. Occasionally there are VAs in japanese that I don't like, but these are rarer, just like I said before I rarely have a problem with english voices in english productions. I think that has a lot more to do with people being willing to be bit more careful in the sort of VAs they cast as opposed to me being harsher on something just because it was once in japanese. Rather like how video game voice acting used to suck quite a bit, but has been improving over the years. Like I said before, if you had those kind of thoughts, I'm glad you don't any longer.

I think I can easily say that rezo won. :O

But in celebration of that

Ya, Rezo, you the man!:D

Subbed or dubbed? Well I guess it depends on the film. Certain films are better for dubbing than others. Also if there's a great dub, then I'll gladly watch it in english, e.g., Ninja Scroll, Akira Special Edition (the original dub was shit). Action films are definately better dubbed, so I generally watch those dubbed and anything else subbed.

Originally posted by rezo

Dude. You said that you learned english, and that before that you thought that all english voices were good, and all french voices were bad. That was a stupid thought.

What ? I didn't say that AT ALL. I had no opinion whatsoever about english voice acting BEFORE I started learning the language, I had opinion on it WHEN I was learning it. Heck, if I did, it would make no sense with what I've been trying to make you understand but that there is no way you would since you're not fluent in more than one language. You clearly never understood that part. Or it was me that didn't phrase correctly. Nonetheless, I'll say it again : drop it.


Originally posted by rezo


Oh yeah, regarding subtitles. The translators have to limit what they can say due to the time and space constraints they have for putting up and displaying the text. Often they'll go for summarizations of what was said as opposed to a fully nuanced translation.



I like that. I agree with that part. But that ends here. I keep saying that limited knowledge doesn't make you judge the voice acting well while you say it's enough. It still can't be more simple than that. That's the thing we're arguing on.


Originally posted by rezo

I think if they hear it enough people will catch the switching of certain s's with h's in the Osakan dialect just like they can tell Hugh Grant is butchering mofioso speak in Mickey Blue Eyes even if they don't know english.


Since you seem to dislike it so much when I say it...Guess what ? I diagree...YET AGAIN !!! Woo-ooh ! How can you he's speaking as a mafioso or not if you don't even understand what he's saying ? You C-A-N-N-O-T. No matter what you have said before , you still haven't convinced me otherwise. I know I haven't convinced you either, and I've said it again : it seems we both ran out of fresh things to say and still haven't convinced each other. We're at a stalemate.


Originally posted by rezo

Who is this directed towards? I don't recall "so despising" any dub scripts. But they're professionals by being paid for their work. As near as I understand it, dub scripts are intentionally modified for sake of demographic purposes, which aren't as stringent on subtitles. Which is why a joke or content is changed outright in a dub and it is more likely to be explained in a sort of liner note in a sub so that they don't have to change it or the translation will be more literal and disregard whether you know about that particular sort of abstract foreign knowledge or not. Not really sure of what you're going for here.


That wasn't aimed at you, it was at no one it particular since I haven't named a "dub hater" in particular. That's not the first time you didn't get who am I referring to in this argument. For a guy who claims to be able to judge voice acting so easily you sure are having a hard time telling my true intentions half the time. (sarcasm)Oh, perhaps if I VOICED it you'd guess since you seem to need so little to judge voice acting ?(/sarcasm)


Originally posted by MogKnight
I think I can easily say that rezo won.


I think I can easily say that you're talking out of your a..., MogKnight. As a mod, you ought to know better than spamming by just stating your favoritism without contributing furthermore to the debate. Do yourself a favor by considering this the next time you want to reply. No offense intended, but I'm not having a war with Rezo, I'm arguing. The only thing he could "win" is convincing me, which he still hasn't and he probably isn't really trying, he and I are just showing our point of views to each other. I don't think Rezo wants to absolutely "win" anything, and so do I. Feel free to add in the debate but if all you have to say is "Rezo wins" or "Rezo's the man" like The Immortal said then forget about it.

Unlike you, The Immortal at least added something relevant to the thread in his last post. He is at least contributing to the thread, if only a little. I know you did in your post preceding that last one but your latest was pure spam.

No, seriously dude, you really did lose. Just suck it up.

Originally posted by TK
No, seriously dude, you really did lose. Just suck it up.

What is it that I lost, TK ? The argument ? Oh, please. You can't "win" or "lose" an argument. You can only keep arguing until you and the other party agrees on the same thing or realize there's nothing more than can be added and both parties stay on the same grounds they were. If by "winning" or "losing" you mean what the OTHERS thought of the argument, then sure, according to the favoritism Rezo gets here he wins. What favoritism am I talking about ? Claiming him the "victor" without explaining yourselves why. So if that's what you want me to suck up, sorry but I ain't doing it. I don't care if you guys think Rezo's right or if I'm not if you only say it and don't back up your claims.

There are many cases in which rezo has won.... I'll state the most obvious.

1. You commented on how he defended his case, that issues a lost in the argument by going off topic.

2. You decided to change the topic of what is being reasoned into me telling me how to do my job, again, going off topic.

3. You did the same to TK as well.

Basically, 2 and 3 didn't matter, the fact that you really just went from the topic at hand into a direct attack to the defender;s (or offender, I don't know) case all ready issues, in ANY DEBATE, a lost.

So suck it up, fight another day, I find rezo's defense in subbing anime as a won.

CASE DIS-FREAKING-MISSED. ^_^

It was a good debate but the repeated offending and threatening remarks cause me to just realize "man... I'd rather listen to rezo and Ndi."

And with that...

Originally posted by MogKnight
There are many cases in which rezo has won.... I'll state the most obvious.

1. You commented on how he defended his case, that issues a lost in the argument by going off topic.

2. You decided to change the topic of what is being reasoned into me telling me how to do my job, again, going off topic.

3. You did the same to TK as well.

Basically, 2 and 3 didn't matter, the fact that you really just went from the topic at hand into a direct attack to the defender;s (or offender, I don't know) case all ready issues, in ANY DEBATE, a lost.

So suck it up, fight another day, I find rezo's defense in subbing anime as a won.

CASE DIS-FREAKING-MISSED. ^_^

It was a good debate but the repeated offending and threatening remarks cause me to just realize "man... I'd rather listen to rezo and Ndi."

And with that...




Going off-topic is a sign of "losing" an argument ? Bullshit. Answering something that already was off-topic has nothing to do with an argument. It's answering something else that just happens to be connected to it. In Law terms, that would called an "Obiter". I answer to you about your spamming and you call me "off-topic" ? Take a good look in the mirror, dear. And I already said you can't "win" or "lose" an argument. Cut me slack with that.

Your only excuse is because you believe you like subbing better you don't care about what I say. That's favoritism. And you can't tell sarcasm from personnal attacks either, so you can drop the personnal remarks part as well.

Oh, one last thing : You said you find his "defense in subbing" as a won ? Then obviously you've never even read my posts. We are NOT arguing on dubbing vs subbing. We are arguing on whether or not you need to be fluent in a language to correctly judge voice acting based on it, which is connected to the subject of the thread therefore not being off-topic. That means you don't even know what it is we're arguing on. So, if there is a "winner", how can you tell which one it is if you don't even know what it is the argument is about ? First of all you can't, and I'll repeat it, there is no "winner" or "loser" in an argument. Go ahead and REALLY read my posts and try to find where exactly it is I said I prefer dubs over subs. You won't find it. That's because I said I don't mind whichever but would if I were Japanese since then I'd understand the original language. That's phrased exactly like that in my first post, but it seems you failed to take a good look.

What ? I didn't say that AT ALL


I used to think English voice acting was always good and French voice acting was always bad.

see? "Learned" implies completion. "Learning" is what you do before you have learned a language.


Heck, if I did, it would make no sense with what I've been trying to make you understand but that there is no way you would since you're not fluent in more than one language.

Your point from a position of authority is weak. Ndi knows two languages and believes you can determine the quality of voice acting in one you aren't fluent in. So it is the same with several other people I know and have known in the past. There's no real reason to accept your claim due to authority when people in an equal position do not.


Since you seem to dislike it so much when I say it...Guess what ? I diagree...YET AGAIN !!! Woo-ooh ! How can you he's speaking as a mafioso or not if you don't even understand what he's saying ? You C-A-N-N-O-T. No matter what you have said before , you still haven't convinced me otherwise. I know I haven't convinced you either, and I've said it again : it seems we both ran out of fresh things to say and still haven't convinced each other. We're at a stalemate.

No stalemate here. I can catch the Kansai(Osaka) dialect when spoken by some in japanese. I wouldn't be able to if you had to be fluent in order to do so. I wouldn't be able to catch a basic American accent if you had to be fluent to be able to do so. As it turns out, it isn't based entirely on knowing what the person is saying. If all you can do is repeatedly shout out "you can't!"s and "how can you!"s then you aren't doing anything if someone can and they explain how. The American accent has a slower pronunciation of words, as well as the occasional extension of syllables that would normally be blended through. The Kansai dialect often substitutes and "h" sound for "s"'s as I said earlier, and even when I first heard it on a show 6 years ago I thought the person's speaking sounded strange compared to everyone else. Now, I didn't know what it was called back then, but that doesn't really matter since that's just a title.

It's very obvious that different people using the same language can sound quite different. The differences in their sounds are not something that is lost until you can understand what they're saying. While there is some familiarity required so that you can be used to something enough to get a grasp of it and tell the difference as well as the obvious benefits of catching something due to your knowledge of what is being said, it can and has been done. The Mickey Blue Eyes example is used because he so obviously butchers the language in a setting designed for comparison that it makes it all that more easier for someone to say "he's speaking the language differently than those other blokes".


That wasn't aimed at you, it was at no one it particular since I haven't named a "dub hater" in particular. That's not the first time you didn't get who am I referring to in this argument

If I'm quoted and there's a paragraph going against what I said and something is an extension of that argument then I suspect that it is being directed at me. But I didn't presume it was directed towards me. I asked who since it couldn't have been, nor did I remember anyone that it would be. But I defended the phantom anyways since he couldn't defend himself.:(






Do yourself a favor by considering this the next time you want to reply. No offense intended, but I'm not having a war with Rezo, I'm arguing.



NO! IT IS A WAR!


I think I can easily say that rezo won.

Hurray!


No, seriously dude, you really did lose. Just suck it up.

Huzzah!


"I win!"

"Learned" might imply completion but even so it's partially done. Therefore, when I was learning means I have learned a part, it's just not complete. I said I believed that when I was learning, not before I started.But I still have learned it a bit. According to you that's enough to be able to judge voice acting while I still believe it isn't.

And I am not pointing anything from authority, I am pointing it out of fact. Because someone you know is in the same position than me but disagrees still doesn't mean you can understand one's point if you aren't in the same position. You can't speak another language, then you can't understand my point. It's that simple.


Originally posted by rezo


NO! IT IS A WAR!



Then if for you it is and all you want is winning, you can take all the "winning" you want, Rezo. It really doesn't matter. All I care about is exposing my point of view, which I'll keep doing until we both run out of things to say. There, you happy ?

All I care about is exposing my point of view, which I'll keep doing until we both run out of things to say. There, you happy ?


*can picture rezo and evad, 50 yrs later, all old and crusty, still debating*

hee hee hee, while they're bitching at each other, I'm curled in a lil corner laughing myself silly:laugh:

Originally posted by Rikku_Kitty



*can picture rezo and evad, 50 yrs later, all old and crusty, still debating*

Ah...well, I don't want to keep arguing THAT long, on second thoughts...lol

I'll get your wheelchairs prepared. XD

No, really, you lost. I'm not kidding. Your arguments have fallen before a powerful assault. rezo's kung-fu of words has KOd you and knocked you out of the ring at the same time. Accept defeat honorably.

I don't like this long posts. :P If all of you could just sum up their thesis in not more than five lines, I'd be more than grateful.
But well, we all have our own ideas.

I'd love to have well-dubbed anime, but that's really more than rare... :(

And I am not pointing anything from authority, I am pointing it out of fact. Because someone you know is in the same position than me but disagrees still doesn't mean you can understand one's point if you aren't in the same position. You can't speak another language, then you can't understand my point. It's that simple.


That's precisely what an argument from authority is. Not only that, like I said earlier, you've done very little to explain that position of authority instead of simply saying that it exists, and not only that, people in a similar position of authority have come to the same conclusions that I have so the value of the authority is lost. So no, I don't see any particular reason why I can't understand your point. You're somewhat like the old man that defends his argument by saying how old he is and how the youngins can only understand what he is saying when they get older, and just like that old man, there are plenty of other old men that disagree with the conclusion he reached in his old age;which is why that sort of argument, being no argument at all, is so useless.

But hell, I'll give another example of a similar authority's views just for you. My friend Rod is from Europe and he speaks three languages, as well as having lived in several places where he didn't speak the native tongue, so I asked him about this topic. He said that someone unfamiliar with a new language won't be able to get certain particulars of speech. He also said that the same limits in getting the particulars of intonation in an unfamiliar language exist when presented with an unfamiliar dialect, but he said in that case it is easier for the person to eventually get used to it and understand them than with the unknown language. He also said that with time, someone that does not know a language does become accustomed to the nature and particulars of intonation simply by hearing it spoken enough times to pick them up -once again, even if they don't know the language. The same applies to foreign dialects.

If you don't know the language but hear it often enough, you'll become familiar enough with it to be able to notice distinctions among people, which is why I can notice the kansai dialect in japanese even though I don't speak japanese. He also cited the example of his roommate who can tell whether someone is speaking Mandarin or Cantonese(though those are entirely seperate languages, right? I don't know, but I can't distinguish the two) and he said that he himself can distinguish between portugese and certain dialects of portugese even though he doesn't know the language. One interesting thing he said is that he believed that it had a lot to do with one's linguistic abilities more so than how many languages they knew. "Someone can know several languages and be a poor linguist, or they could know one and be excellent." Some people are attuned to picking up distinctions in language quicker than others who may just be nearly entirely oblivious no matter how long they're exposed. Yeah, like I said, I thought that part was interesting, if only for being a sort of new perspective on the topic.




Then if for you it is and all you want is winning, you can take all the "winning" you want, Rezo. It really doesn't matter. All I care about is exposing my point of view, which I'll keep doing until we both run out of things to say. There, you happy ?

YOUR HEAD WILL MAKE A FINE ORNAMENT FOR MY BOOKSHELF.

Originally posted by rezo


YOUR HEAD WILL MAKE A FINE ORNAMENT FOR MY BOOKSHELF.

Woah, at least you're putting some kind of value on it. Thanks...I guess. lol

I've had enough. I'm not convinced one bit but I'm tired of it. I don't see at all how you have been more convincing than me but since everybody seems to like you so much, no matter what I say somebody will just keep answering even if it's not you. And I've kept saying that if I don't have anything else to say I'll stop, and it is that time. So I'm stopping it. No matter what you will answer, this is my last reply in this thread.

However, as I've still said, in my point of view you can't "win" or "lose" an argument. To me, an argument is not a war. But since in everybody else's definition, including what seems to be yours, it is and it appears you have "won", then so be it. Congratulatons, Rezo. So get out your champagne, do whatever you can if it pleases you. I don't give a damn. Except one thing : you're not getting my head, even if it were to fit well on your bookshelf. Sorry, but I like it where it is. Perhaps a certificate will do ? Just kidding.

rezo: 1
Evad: 0



SEE YOU NEXT TIME!

(I would have said "fight" instead of "time," but I'd feel like a poser because I really have no idea what that's in reference to. :\)

However, as I've still said, in my point of view you can't "win" or "lose" an argument. To me, an argument is not a war. But since in everybody else's definition, including what seems to be yours, it is and it appears you have "won", then so be it. Congratulatons, Rezo.

No. Like I told you years ago, I like to mess around in debates and the like. Just for fun. People take them too seriously and ought to realize what topics they're actually talking about before getting flustered or whatever. But like I said then, people would always take it seriously and such or get weird, so I was holding it back. You laughed then,but seem to think I would actually be celebrating with hurrahs some random agreeance from someone and from that we can truly see the ravages of time.



(I would have said "fight" instead of "time," but I'd feel like a poser because I really have no idea what that's in reference to. :\)

It's from Salaryman Kintaro. At the end of each episode it says SEE YOU NEXT FIGHT

And then... and then

at the end of the episode just before the last one of the season, it says SEE YOU NEXT FINAL FIGHT

yeah.