Did it bother anyone else how there was a voice over Narrator Style for the deaf people when they were signing? I mean, it made it more of a convenience for the viewers, but for me, it kinda took away from their character. Just in my eyes, my family agrees, but I want to know what other people feel. Please don't respond hastily. I'm not here to argue:) Thanks for your input!
shareYes, I was just mentioning that - the dubbing wasn't exactly the same as the mouth movements, and, it seemed awkward at times, though, in real life, Marlee Matlin's speech isn't clear enough to be understood at all times, so, without closed captioning, some of what she (and the other deaf actors) said would have been lost, so, it was a compromise...
Still, I think it would have been better had subtitles been used instead of dubbing...
Personally I have closed captioning on for everything. But there are alot of people out there that don't want to have to read subtitles, especially for a movie with that much in it. Hallmark is general family type movies so kids are not going to sit there and read the entire movie. That why they most likely did that.
http://www.purplefreak3.com
http://www.beautifuljodelle.com
[deleted]
I liked it. Subtitles don't convey the emotions of spoken words. (Or of signed words too I'm sure, but I can't read sign language.) When I see foreign-language films, even when I can't understand the spoken language, I can understand the emotions being felt by the speaker. With no spoken words as in this movie, having only subtitles would not have conveyed the emotions. That is why having voice overs was a good decision. My opinion.
You must be the change you seek in the world. -- Gandhi
I read an article that said they originally did subtitles, but it did not go over well with their sample audience, so they did voice overs instead. Most people don't want to read subtitles I guess. I was up in the air about it - when I read that was the plan I was a little iffy, but I ended up not minding it.
Also, they said they had a hard time getting Marlee to not mouth words like she is used to doing while she signs, because her character was supposed to have never spoken. I thought that was kind of funny- that would be so hard to stop yourself!
Huh - that's all very interesting to hear...
Personally, the way it was done in one of her early movies was better - she signed but did not mouth the words - the person she spoke with did interpret her signs, so, he then repeated her words aloud - that seemed to work very well...
Perhaps it should have been done here, however, I can see how the amount of dialogue would have been a problem, which was not always the case in the other film, but, even in that film, there were two or three scenes that were as argumentive as those in last night's film, so...
Still, it was good to see sign language used again...
I didn't like the voice overs at first; I would've been fine with the subtitles on because I use them sometimes anyway. As the movie went on, I got used to the voices. It probably seemed most weird at first because I know what Marlee Matlin sounds like!
Though it is dark . . . know your flag . . . is still there.
Yeah!
shareI didn't like the voice over's either but I understand why they did it that way. I also read and speak sign language and found myself muting the t.v. when they were signing because sign language and the english language are so completely different, the spoken words don't go exactly with the sign, so it gets confusing.
shareI was watching the movie and I had to pause 30 mins into it because the voice overs were killing me. I am glad someone else noticed and I am glad there was a discussion on this subject. I'd have preferred the original voices and captions instead but I can understand why other ppl would want a voice over.
shareI didn't mind the voice overs that much; I mean it's not like they had very much to choose from, either the people would speak the words themselves, but I know from experience deaf people aren't always that understandeble and they have other grammar, or it would be subtitled but that would ruin it for me because it would take part of the screen away and then you wouldn't be able to see all of the Sign Language and that wouldn't cover all of the emotions..
(sorry if i made a lot of mistakes and wrong sentences but english isn't my main language)
'What doesn't kill you makes you stranger..'
What I appreciated about the VO's was that it gave me the opportunity to focus on the signing itself, whereas I feel that if there'd been subtitles, I would have been too focused on keeping up with the words and missed the language of signing.
~I am not afraid of storms, for I am learning how to sail my ship~ LMA
When someone's talking, you're not just looking at their mouth, you're looking at the entire body: how they move, the tone of their voice, their facial expressions. Sign language has this benefit too. People are conveying just as much emotion using only their hands to the point that even non-signing people can generally understand the tone of a silent conversation without understanding a word.
Captions unfortunately have absolutely none of these qualities. Instead of watching the characters on the screen, you're paying attention to the subtitles to see what's going on. By going the voice over route, they ensure that you're watching the characters on the screen and not something else. Everyone's right about the fact that it doesn't translate as well as sign language, but the movie wasn't made for sign readers only and it does translate far better than captions, which is what the film maker's were trying to achieve.
I myself can subtitles and pay complete attention to whats going on the screen, not everybody is capable of this and I can only do it because I watch a lot of foreign movies. I used to hate and avoid movies with subtitles for just this reason (I know, I was missing out). It's not a criticism of sign language or deafness, it's a criticism of the problems some people run into when watching a movie in subtitles and a true one at that.