Never understood why standup comedy DVDs like Peter Kay, Ricky Gervais, etc never seems to have subtitles!

:wall:

Anyone know of any Standup DVDs that does?

Amen to that!

Especially Billy Connelly too!

Hi there,

I trully understand your eagerness to have stand-up comedies subtitled! However, apart from any financial concerns that some subtitling companies may have, one should think of another problem of practical nature. That is, the extreme quick pace of this kind of comedies doesn't allow for the viewer much reading time. Moreover, much editing that could compensate for shortage of time would probably ruin the special feature of stand-up comedies where every single word counts!
So, it may not always be the case for the subtilting companies of neglecting or ignoring deaf people. Right???

Cheers!

I disagree - We are entitled access to this entertainment just as much as the next hearing person.

Experienced subtitle users can read subtitles much, much faster than the average viewer. Subtitles may appear too fast to someone who is not dependent upon them. And with current DVD player technology, you can always slow down the playback.

It is also normal to be able to read much faster than someone can speak. So there isn't really an issue of subtitles not being able to keep up with the dialogue. If the dialogue was too fast for subtitles, then it would also be too fast to hear properly.

Cheers,
Mat

[quote name='mat' date='Apr 6 2006, 06:21 PM' post='28585']
[quote name='aphrodite' post='28583' date='Apr 6 2006, 04:48 PM']
Hi there,

I trully understand your eagerness to have stand-up comedies subtitled! However, apart from any financial concerns that some subtitling companies may have, one should think of another problem of practical nature. That is, the extreme quick pace of this kind of comedies doesn't allow for the viewer much reading time. Moreover, much editing that could compensate for shortage of time would probably ruin the special feature of stand-up comedies where every single word counts!
So, it may not always be the case for the subtilting companies of neglecting or ignoring deaf people. Right???

Cheers!
[/quote]

But television have show Peter Kay and Billy Connelly etc. with subtitle. But BBC or ITV or C4 have to do this and why does not DVD do the same?

I follow it perfectly well and laugh out and out on t.v.

It is all about lack of awareness and maximum profit making

DVDwarrior

Hi (again!),

I'm sorry but I was not aware of this genre being subtitled for the TV but not for DVDs. That is why I assumed time and condensation would pose problems to subtitling stand-up comedies. Moreover, I do know that financial profit with as much low cost as possible is almost every company's goal and I totally disagree with that. But this is reality which we ALL have to change! On behalf of the subtitlers-if I can already be called a subtitler!-I would like to thank you for exchanging your views and ideas through this forum. I've learned many more things from this forum than I did this last year by reading books.

Mat, the few published books for SDH keep directing us in condensing because according to researches deaf people need 2 and 4 sec. at least to read a full liner and two full lines respectively. Probably, someone has to update this information!!!

Cheers,
Aphrodite!

4 SECONDS to read 2 lines ?!

Honestly, it takes me less than 1 second, I've just tried.

Do the people who write these books assume we are dyslexic as well?

Mat


PS. does it really take you 4 seconds to quickly read the 3 lines I typed above? And don't you think someone who reads subtitles all the time would be able to read them even faster?

I agreed with Mat about 1 second minimum - as soon subtitle come up - I have read it already - I have read the above both quote less than 3 seconds!

Sometime when DVD film goes through boring part and I fast forward at same time read subtitle more quickly!

DVDwarrior

A number of Roy Chubby Brown's stand-up performances have been subtitled for DVD (including the songs). The subtitles are fairly brisk, but that's part of the energy and exhilaration of the performance.

Elsewhere on this site, people have argued that subtitles are helpful for people who aren't necessarily deaf, who don't speak English as a first language, or who may have reading difficulties (not necessarily dyslexicetc, but low vision, for instance). If we're arguing that subtitles are for a broad audience, then surely it's fair not to have the reading speed set too fast? I'm not saying that they need to be for the lowest common denominator, but somewhere in-between.

Well, they don't slow down the playback & audio stream, or tell the performers to speak slower, do they?

The point is that I believe subtitles should be verbatim (is that the right word?) and reflect the spoken dialogue exactly. If the subtitles are too fast to read properly then the dialogue is also too fast to be heard properly. If the dialogue is too fast then we should be blame the filmmakers or the performer, not the sound man or the subtitler.

I agree in principle that subtitles should be aimed at a wide audience, but I'm totally against the concept of the subtitles being "dumbed down" and not reflecting the true dialogue. The subtitler should be producing a 100% accurate transcription of the dialogue, it is not his fault if the performer speaks too fast.

Imagine if you were the average hearing Peter Kay fan, and instead of hearing Peter Kay's voice, you heard a dubbed, slow, monotonous voice summarising his jokes in sentences simple enough for a 10-year-old? It would ruin the jokes, wouldn't it? No-one would accept this. This is exactly how I feel when I find the subtitles don't reflect 100% the words spoken. Why should I accept any lyrics or subtitles which aren't a 100% reproduction of what is sung or spoken?

Just my views.

Mat

Yup - subtitles to be verbatim please.

I do the fast-forward thing as well all the time with extras. I can fast forward it so that the subtitles go really, really fast (16x, 20x) and I can still read them and take it in. It doesn't make sense why reading would be slower than taking speech in. I use subtitles all the time and it's the case of: a glance and a sentence is taken in.

I find it's more of a problem to read subtitles when the pace of the speaker changes. Once you get into a rhythm it's fine watching subtitles at a brisk pace, but if you get lulled into a slower rate and then something whizzes by quickly then it's easy to miss a subtitle - and quite often it's the important bit.

Also, it's easier to read something more quickly if you're already familiar with it.

Also, it's much harder when subtitles pop up unexpectedly - I think it takes a second or so just for your eye to focus.

Also, obscure or invented words might take slightly longer to recognise.

I had a book on learning how to speed read. It suggested that the average reading speed was less than 200 words per minute. I think those tests were done using a page of prose text, so you could see what's ahead out of the corner of your eye. There are plenty of sites to test this online, but I'm not sure if we're supposed to refer to thos sites - can we? Anyway, the words "speed reading test online" in Google found some.

Bear in mind that if you're reading text/prose you're probably building a mental picture of the subject as well, whereas with subtitles you're already provided with the visual element.

Another thing is that with TV e.g. the News, you only have one chance to pick up the story so I'm quite happy to accept simplified subtitles in this context - understanding the story is paramount here and it doesnt really matter if the subtitles don't reflect the dialogue exactly.

However, I see movies as a type of art. I want to follow the pictures and dialogue exactly as the director intended. And on DVD it is very easy to go back and replay pictures and dialogue I didn't quite get the first time. I find myself doing this all the time with Lord of The Rings or King Kong as there's so much background detail I didn't pick up on the first pass.

What if you went to see the Mona Lisa and instead of the real thing you saw a quick sketch by some kid saying "it looks like this"? Not quite satisfactory is it? In exactly the same way, I want to see the original dialogue as the director intended - anything else is not good enough.

Cheers,
Mat

peter kay is funny