Who said I didn't?
Subtitles vs Signing
- Thread starter Lord Camomile
- Start date
Orang Utan
Maybe I like the misery
it's a film. get the dvd you tit
Speaks someone who I believe works for a tv company.
ivebeenhigh
Well-Known Member
which is why you are missing the point.
Orang Utan
Maybe I like the misery
Speaks someone who I believe works for a tv company.
and?
As I mentioned earlier, from past experience, it doesn't seem that TV programmers give much regard to the audience or the people who make the programmes/films so your response didn't really surprise me.
Which is?
ivebeenhigh
Well-Known Member
that subtitles are a poor substitute for signing.
They seem fine to me for films that aren't in English. I can understand those films pretty well. Why is it different for deaf people?
weepiper
I fix the machines that fight climate change
what if those deaf people don't have very good English?
ivebeenhigh
Well-Known Member
signing is not just about understanding words, ita about communicating emotion, something you can't do in subtitles.
would you like to watch all of your tv forever in subtitles? or you rather watch it in your first lagnauge?
Good point, but I thought someone had mentioned before that the sign language isn't a universal language.
Why is it a troll?Good point about the emotions, although I think subtitles do try to do this, perhaps not as successfully. The actions of the actors surely give some clue as to the emotions being expressed rather than the actions of a signer as well.
I wouldn't like to be deaf, so it's difficult to answer your question, but I don't have an issue with reading subtitles, although for live broadcasts there are normally quite funny/unusual subtitles which would be confusing and annoying.
I haven't got an issue with programmes being signed but in the programme I referred to, the placement of the signer was overly obtrusive and distracting to the audience that isn't deaf and surely they should try to cater for all the potential audience. It just struck me that films would have decent subtitles and therefore, wasn't sure what the problem was with using them.
But the subtitles only give a condensed translation of the dialogue. You don't get the whole thing - there isn't space or time enough before one set of subtitles has to give way to the next (I believe that, for ease of reading, there is a maximum of two lines and a limit to how many words per line - but correct me if I'm wrong, missfran). A tremendous amount of nuance and expression is lost. The difference for a deaf person between watching a film with subtitles and watching one signed is as great as the difference for a hearing person between watching a foreign film subtitled or watching it dubbed. Plus with the written word you lose all the emotion that tone of voice and intonation convey. This isn't lost in signing
Try watching an English language film on DVD with the English language subtitles on and you will see how much is is often condensed, or better still, try watching it on mute and with subtitles to get and idea of the experience.
Reno
The In Kraut
Maltin may well be talking about something he doesn't quite understand and he is letting his purist feeling for film override his consideration for hearing impaired people, being a bit insensitive in the process, but I'm pretty sure he isn't a troll. It's a bit lazy to accuse people of trolling just because you are offended by their opinion.
I appreciate your point, but I prefer to watch subtitled films than dubbed films.
ivebeenhigh
Well-Known Member
because subtitles are nowhere near as successful. as you say yourself subtitles are often shortened and inaccurate, so its especially important in a film, where there is a lot of context and subtlety that sign language is used when ever possible?
do you moan about having to walk another 10 metres to the supermarket because you cant park in the disabled bay?
Thank you for defending me. I definitely wasn't intending to be insensitive and am sorry if some people think I may have been.
So do I, but I would much prefer to be able to understand everything that was being said - I'd like to speak the language! Signing comes closer to conveying everything than subtitling does, so I can appreciate why a deaf person would prefer it over subtitles.
I don't think it was me that said the subtitles were shortened or inaccurate. I mentioned that on live broadcasts, mistakes are unsurprisingly made. I think the subtitles on films not in English are very good. I appreciate that things are shortened but the subtitles are written to ensure that the meaning is very clearly conveyed.
What relevance has my complaint got with disabled parking bays? If you are going to use an analogy using supermarket car parks perhaps it would be more analogous to having all the supermarket parking bays only available for disabled people at a certain time each day so that no one else can park there.
Orang Utan
Maybe I like the misery
i'm not here to represent anyone but myself. i think there should be a lot more on-screen signing. all the major channels merely play lip service to hearing-and visually-impaired people by doing the bare minimum when it comes to SG and AD services. it needs to do a lot more imo. it should go as far as having a red button for everyone requiring ad and sg on all programmes.
ivebeenhigh
Well-Known Member
you are missing the point. again. subtitles arent as good as sign language. therefore in the interest of non hearing people, there should be subtitles.
no it woultn't. no one is stopping you watching a signed film. sure it might be a little less enjoyable for you, but luckily you get to hear so can watch the film with sound and also watch it all the other times it is on without signing.
Grandma Death
Reconfiguring & Reconstructing
A coach load of deaf people stop off at a pub on the way home from a day trip. After an hour the beers are flowing and everyone is getting drunk....the landlord calls time and suddenly the party of deaf people start signing in synchronicity. The landlord turns to one of the bar staff and says "god they've started singing we'll never get rid of them now"
My folks are deaf and thats their favourite joke.
My folks are deaf and thats their favourite joke.
Grandma Death
Reconfiguring & Reconstructing
If you're profoundly deaf and don't lip read you won't notice the difference. My folks use subtitles all the time.
There is a programme on BBC1 now that is being signed and because they have framed the screen such that the signer is only partly in the frame, it is much easier to watch because my eyes are focused on the screen on the left rather than on the signer.
The film I was complaining about just superimposed the signer over the "action" of the film which to me, made it totally distracting such that it made it unwatchable. Just because I can hear a programme it doesn't mean that the broadcasters can't make it unwatchable.
mrsfran
Well-Known Member
I'm not sure why you think adding sign language means TV programmes don't give a shit about the films they're showing. They give a shit about making it accessible, even when it inconveniences you in a very minor way. Like I said, my heart bleeds that you weren't able to watch this programme that TXed at 2am when deaf people don't have access to sign language on TV at any other time.
Sign language is a beautiful, emotive language. Imagine if all the actors on the screen spoke in monotone and showed no facial expressions. Not very fun, is it? With sign language the emotion, drama and sense of the scene can be translated in a way subtitles can never do.
For a lot of deaf people, particularly older people, their English is not good. BSL has a completely different grammar and syntax to English and subtitles are hard to follow. And as said by others, subtitles necessarily have to condense the dialogue. Parts are missed out. You're not getting the full sense of the programme.
It may be that ITV (who I don't work for) didn't sign this programme particularly well - they may have placed the signer too far into the centre of the screen and it obscured the action. However, the reason for that may be because the programme was created for a 4:3 screen and you were watching on 16:9. Do you have a widescreen TV? Was it an old film?
I think it's petty of you to complain that one or two programmes have been "ruined" by the addition of sign language. You have the entire rest of televisual output to watch. 99% of it. Thousands of hours. But you choose to moan about the tiny percentage of it that exists to be accessible to deaf people who prefer sign language.
Similar threads
