You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
How does one determine what 'deserves' a dub or not?
- Thread starter Derpa derp derp
- Start date
biwestvirginagirl
New member
Happens in manga, too. Some of the differences are so huge that you have to wonder how they could possibly have been translated from the same source text. In some cases the content isn't even remotely similar, and in one instance, a character in the DH version of Berserk says the exact opposite of what fan translation says.
Again, not that this has anything to do with consumers preferring subs or dubs...
Again, not that this has anything to do with consumers preferring subs or dubs...
sadomiforgets
New member
Sorry but, speaking for my little brother, he can't keep up with subs. They go by far too quickly for him to read them and also pay attention to the action. Currently, I'm letting him watch Full Metal Alchemist: Brotherhood and Dragon Ball Kai and it's hard for him, so no I really don't think the original is universal at all and one of the reasons dubs are needed is because of this.
However if you're reading subtitles instead of just watching the show you're not really getting the same experience now are you? You're more or less getting the experience of a hearing impaired viewer only you can still enjoy the sound of the music and the vocals whether you can understand them or not.
Simply put to consider a subtitled version as "the original" is understandable but not quite correct.
Simply put to consider a subtitled version as "the original" is understandable but not quite correct.
I guess the best way to determine what deserves a dub or not is: whether or not you want the anime to sell outside of its native region with the widest market possible.
I've never heard of somebody saying 'this anime doesn't deserve a dub.' Unless it has an absolutely horrible premise and doesn't deserve the time of day, but that's a matter of opinion and there's a niche for everything.
I've never heard of somebody saying 'this anime doesn't deserve a dub.' Unless it has an absolutely horrible premise and doesn't deserve the time of day, but that's a matter of opinion and there's a niche for everything.
Camillus Fly
New member
Maybe. But it's the way people talk.
If someone tells you that a dub sucks and that you should watch the original version instead, the understanding is that you should watch the Japanese version with subtitles. If the person had wanted you to track down the raw, they'd say so specifically.
It's just like how we American fans mean "the English dub" whenever we refer to something simply as "the dub." The "English" part is understood and doesn't need to be said.
If someone tells you that a dub sucks and that you should watch the original version instead, the understanding is that you should watch the Japanese version with subtitles. If the person had wanted you to track down the raw, they'd say so specifically.
It's just like how we American fans mean "the English dub" whenever we refer to something simply as "the dub." The "English" part is understood and doesn't need to be said.
People also commonly pronounce "nuclear" as "nukular" and refer to spiders and scorpions as insects or dolphins as fish. That doesn't make it correct. It's one of those things that's too much trouble to correct every time it comes up in casual conversation, but when we're having a discussion specifically about dubs and subs, I hardly think it's out of line to ask people to be a little bit more exact in their word choice.
There's a difference between saying, "Let's not watch the dub today, let's watch the original," and saying, "We should always watch the sub because it's the original and the dub is not." In the former, the incorrect assumption that the sub is "the original" is incidental: it's a poor word choice, not an error in judgment. In the latter, it's central to the point being made and deserves to be corrected.
There's a difference between saying, "Let's not watch the dub today, let's watch the original," and saying, "We should always watch the sub because it's the original and the dub is not." In the former, the incorrect assumption that the sub is "the original" is incidental: it's a poor word choice, not an error in judgment. In the latter, it's central to the point being made and deserves to be corrected.
The reason people equate "the original" with "the sub" is because, really, the difference between the two is negligible. It's like claiming that a TV show and then that same TV show with close captions turned on are two completely different products. There's no need to split hairs so much.
Saying that the subtitled version is the "original" version isn't really incorrect. Adding unobtrusive subtitles to the bottom of the screen doesn't change the fact that the show that the subtitles are being added to is the original version.
Of course, a few of you disagree with me. And that's fine. But, for the most part, people don't make a distinction between "the sub" and "the original" because it's a distinction that's seen as being largely unnecessary.
Also..."We should always watch the sub because it's the original and the dub is not"? No one talks like that :/
Saying that the subtitled version is the "original" version isn't really incorrect. Adding unobtrusive subtitles to the bottom of the screen doesn't change the fact that the show that the subtitles are being added to is the original version.
Of course, a few of you disagree with me. And that's fine. But, for the most part, people don't make a distinction between "the sub" and "the original" because it's a distinction that's seen as being largely unnecessary.
Also..."We should always watch the sub because it's the original and the dub is not"? No one talks like that :/