Why can't there be subtitles instead of sound synchronisation?
By boldriq
@boldriq (201)
Slovenia
March 3, 2007 2:17pm CST
I hate the chanells with sound synchronised programs. When you synchronise something it looses its originality, no matter how goos it has been done. Once you know how a certain person in the picture sounds like, it can never be replaced with another voice, let alone in another language. I never could understand why can't couldn't there be subtitles instead. I mean, it's not because people couldn't read. And I doubt that people would rather hear a holywood motion picture in their native sonud. Or would they? And never mind the country, but if it wouldn't be synchronised, everybody could watch it. Why, why, why...???
1 response
@Chilly80 (40)
• Slovenia
8 Mar 07
I know what you mean. When I change between channels and I see a great movie and I say to myself Oh great I'm gonna watch this and then you hear it's synchronisated in a language you cannot understand. There's nothing worse than that. I hate it. I didn't understand why didn't they rather subtitled the movie than synchronised it. Than I asked a friend from Switzerland about this. I asked him if it doesn't bother him when he sees Schwarzenegger for example on Tv and he knows what kind of voice he has and than he hears him in his own language spoken by someone else. And he said to me that there's nothing better than a movie that is synchronised because it's easyer to understand. I tryed to understand what he was saying to me but I still don't see his point to this day and we talked about this a few aeyrs ago.
