[floatl][/floatl]The Sankei has an interesting article about Japanese subtitles on foreign films. Apparently, the companies creating subtitles are facing problems communicating with young audiences. Kanji literacy seems to be on the decline so subtitlers are finding they have to be more selective in their choice of appropriate characters. They have been increasingly using furigana to help audiences with the readings or have resorted to using katakana. However, furigana can slow reading speed, no matter how momentarily, while katakana expressions take up more space on the screen. The article says that the first subtitled film in Japan was Morocco which was released in 1931. The Japanese distributors had intended to dub it, which was the usual practice at the time with foreign films, but there was a shortage of dubbing facilities so they used subtitles as a last resort. The film, starring Gary Cooper and Marlene Dietrich, was a major hit and convinced the movie companies that subtitling was a legitimate option.

In the pre-war period, subitles usually appeared in columns on the right of the screen. Each line would be around thirteen characters long with a maximum of three lines on screen at one time. After the war, experience led companies to the conclusion that the average audience reading speed was about four characters a second so they began to limit subtitles to two lines of ten characters. The 1980's diffusion of video rentals encouraged companies to move subtitles to the bottom of the screen, where they were easier to see on a television, and allowed a return to thirteen characters, although still limited to two lines. However, film companies are finding that young audience members are having trouble finishing these subtitles so gradually they have cut back once again to ten characters. This has subtitlers tearing their hair out: they can be more concise by using less familiar kanji but these are precisely the ones that younger readers find problematic. Also, to the amazement of some in the industry, young audiences are also lacking some cultural references which have always been taken for granted. One insider says that they now have to think twice about mentioning "the Soviet Union" or even "Nazis" because some people just don't know what they mean. Film companies are beginning to think that they may have to return to dubbing once more to overcome these difficulties. Toho-Towa, the Toho subsidiary responsible for international releases, is planning to show dubbed versions of some major Hollywood hit films over summer in a special presentation.

Mulboyne wrote:[floatl][/floatl]The Sankei has an interesting article about Japanese subtitles on foreign films. Apparently, the companies creating subtitles are facing problems communicating with young audiences. Kanji literacy seems to be on the decline so subtitlers are finding they have to be more selective in their choice of appropriate characters. They have been increasingly using furigana to help audiences with the readings or have resorted to using katakana. However, furigana can slow reading speed, no matter how momentarily, while katakana expressions take up more space on the screen. The article says that the first subtitled film in Japan was Morocco which was released in 1931. The Japanese distributors had intended to dub it, which was the usual practice at the time with foreign films, but there was a shortage of dubbing facilities so they used subtitles as a last resort. The film, starring Gary Cooper and Marlene Dietrich, was a major hit and convinced the movie companies that subtitling was a legitimate option.

In the pre-war period, subitles usually appeared in columns on the right of the screen. Each line would be around thirteen characters long with a maximum of three lines on screen at one time. After the war, experience led companies to the conclusion that the average audience reading speed was about four characters a second so they began to limit subtitles to two lines of ten characters. The 1980's diffusion of video rentals encouraged companies to move subtitles to the bottom of the screen, where they were easier to see on a television, and allowed a return to thirteen characters, although still limited to two lines. However, film companies are finding that young audience members are having trouble finishing these subtitles so gradually they have cut back once again to ten characters. This has subtitlers tearing their hair out: they can be more concise by using less familiar kanji but these are precisely the ones that younger readers find problematic. Also, to the amazement of some in the industry, young audiences are also lacking some cultural references which have always been taken for granted. One insider says that they now have to think twice about mentioning "the Soviet Union" or even "Nazis" because some people just don't know what they mean. Film companies are beginning to think that they may have to return to dubbing once more to overcome these difficulties. Toho-Towa, the Toho subsidiary responsible for international releases, is planning to show dubbed versions of some major Hollywood hit films over summer in a special presentation.

It would really suck if they switch to showing only dubbed movies in the theatres...

Nozomi Tsuji, 22, is reported here (Japanese) saying that she only watches dubbed versions because she can't keep up with subtitles. She was saying it to Osamu Suzuki who wrote the script for the dubbed version of Night at the Museum II but she isn't known for being especially smart so it is very possibly true.

One insider says that they now have to think twice about mentioning "the Soviet Union" or even "Nazis" because some people just don't know what they mean.

There is no cure for dumb. The subtitles should stick as close to an accurate translation as possible without regard for the retards who may be watching. If they don't know wtf the people in the movie are talking about or cannot keep pace with or read the Kanji, maybe it will serve as a good wake up call that they should spend more time in a library and less in a theatre.

ttjereth wrote:It would really suck if they switch to showing only dubbed movies in the theatres...

Not really, it would just legitimize my use of the internet as a means to watch movies.

Off topic, my Japanese reading skills are pretty poor, but has anyone seen the subtitles they use on Fox's "House MD"? It seems to me half the time they're telling a different story entirely.

Mulboyne wrote:. . . Kanji literacy seems to be on the decline so subtitlers are finding they have to be more selective in their choice of appropriate characters. . . .

I am not surprised. I have interviewed dozens on young Japanese in the US on student visas here to learn English and looking to intern at our company. I am always astonished at the frequency of illiteracy among these young adults.

The most troubling cases are Japanese who claim they did not fit-in in Japan and they came to the U.S. while still in high school. They say they did better in American high school than in Japanese schools. The problem, however, is that they left Japan when they were, say, in the 10th grade. At that point their Japanese education essentially stopped. No more Kanji practice, no more learning in their mother language. They come to America and learn English, but, except in the most exceptional of cases, they become middling English speakers and they end up not being competent in either language and there by functionally illiterate in both.

kino wrote:There is no cure for dumb. The subtitles should stick as close to an accurate translation as possible without regard for the retards who may be watching. If they don't know wtf the people in the movie are talking about or cannot keep pace with or read the Kanji, maybe it will serve as a good wake up call that they should spend more time in a library and less in a theatre.

Perhaps the subtitle to that comment should be [pride will come before the fall].

"The subtitles should stick as close to an accurate translation as possible without regard for the retards who may be watching."

You can't translate even remotely close to the original dialogue. About a third of all dialogue consists of idioms and slang that would make no sense to non-native speaker. Culture and language are permanently tethered, and so are cultural mores of reactions and words in most all situations.

You also cannot expect cynicism and sarcasm, two bedrocks of western cultures, to translate. Facial expressions and language tailored by cultural rules of social status don't carry over from one culture to another.

If you think subtitling is easy, you probably haven't thought about it deeply enough.

Number11 wrote:"The subtitles should stick as close to an accurate translation as possible without regard for the retards who may be watching."

You can't translate even remotely close to the original dialogue. About a third of all dialogue consists of idioms and slang that would make no sense to non-native speaker. Culture and language are permanently tethered, and so are cultural mores of reactions and words in most all situations.

You also cannot expect cynicism and sarcasm, two bedrocks of western cultures, to translate. Facial expressions and language tailored by cultural rules of social status don't carry over from one culture to another.

If you think subtitling is easy, you probably haven't thought about it deeply enough.

What part of "stick as close to an accurate translation as possible" do you not understand?

At any rate, you seem to have missed both the point of the article, and the gist of my response which had nothing to do with the difficulties of translating in general. It was about stupid audience members not being able to read or keep pace with the subtitles as they flashed accross the screen. So when I say, "stick to the script" I mean they should refrain from dumbing down the translations just for the purpose maybe reaching that niche "dumbass" market.

kino wrote:niche "dumbass" market

Unfortunately the niche market is probably not the dumbasses.

Do people still say "What part of X did not understand?"

I understood the article just fine. I wasn't responding to it, I was responding to your comment, you pedantic little turd.

You cannot "stick to the script" with translations. If you meant that the subtitles shouldn't be dumbed down, you should have said that.

If you can't express yourself clearly, maybe someone here can add subtitles to your posts.

Number11 wrote:Do people still say "What part of X did not understand?"

I understood the article just fine. I wasn't responding to it, I was responding to your comment, you pedantic little turd.

You cannot "stick to the script" with translations. If you meant that the subtitles shouldn't be dumbed down, you should have said that.

If you can't express yourself clearly, maybe someone here can add subtitles to your posts.

Maybe you should reread my original comment, which again had nothing to do with the difficulties of translating.

You cannot "stick to the script" with translations.

I take it your decision to leave "as possible" out of the above was deliberate since it kind of destroys your argument. The whole reason I wrote "as possible" was to hedge my bet and counter in advance any criticisms from people such as you.

My original comment which was about "dumbing down" scripts containing difficult characters or expressions since some people might not understand them. My only criticism of that approach is that it might result in subtitles of less quality and fidelity. In other words, translator X with years of experience believes compound kanji Y best fits what is being said. However, the same translator is hesitant to use that kanji, despite its use in the past, because a younger audience may not understand. I think it would be a disservice to the audience members, both those who understand and those who don't, should the translator betray their own better judgment in a condescending attempt to coddle the audience.

As the original article predicted:

Variety: Hollywood pics move to dubbing in Japan

In a push to attract younger auds to Hollywood pics, Paramount Japan has taken the unusual step of dubbing nearly half of the prints for current release "Shutter Island." It seems that not only do younger filmgoers prefer not to read, but the spate of 3D releases is harder to appreciate while reading subtitles at the same time. Japan has long been a theatrical market where subtitles rule for all but kid-targeted toons and live-action pics such as the "Harry Potter" series. Foreign pics on network TV, however, are commonly dubbed.

Since the dawn of talkies, most non-Japanese films have gone out with subtitles. But the decision to release 188 dubbed prints of the Martin Scorsese at 42% of the 452 total locations, seems to be paying off. "Shutter Island" opened April 9 atop the Japanese B.O. with $3.65 million. Paramount is hoping for at least a $20 million haul. "There is a lot of visual information in the film -- dubbing makes it easier to take everything in," explains the pic's local publicist Takayuki Washino. Another, perhaps more pertinent reason: "Young people feel that reading subtitles is too much of a bother -- and they're a big part of our audience," Washino adds.

Par was encouraged by the smash success of "Avatar," which also played in Japan with dubbed prints. "Not just 'Avatar,' but all 3D films are rather hard for the audience to see. Dubbing helps them concentrate on the screen," Washino explains. It remains to be seen, however, whether dubbing can stop the market share slide of Hollywood pics in Japan. In 2009, local pics grabbed 57% of the market, compared with just 43% percent for all foreign pics. In 2003, when Scorsese's "Gangs of New York" scored $32 million at the Japanese B.O. -- with subtitles -- the percentages were reversed: 63 percent foreign, 33 percent domestic.

In other news, Midwinter has another reason to download more movies.

Go fuck yourselves, Japan. I'm turning my torrents up to 11!