Why we all need subtitles now?

[Blumlein 88]

I use them ... and has taken awhile to get used to it. As a downside, I find them distracting. Upside is that I can watch some shows or movies that would otherwise be unwatchable as even "english" intelligibility depends on the dialect. I love British shows but admit that parts of England use some slang that would otherwise go right overhead. Same goes for other countries that produce films or shows without trying to cater to an American audience.

So, using subtitles is a compromise but without them I'd still be stuck in my self absorbed "American" reality. It's enlightening to see how other people around the world interact with each other on their own terms.

I'm not complaining about subtitles for movies in another language. I usually switch the language and turn on subtitles for movies where the voices have been dubbed in using English. I should not have to do that for dialog in my native language.

 

[thulle]

That reminds me of Alfred Hitchcock's quote, "if it's a good movie, the sound could go off and the audience would still have a perfectly clear idea of what's going on" and "whenever possible, you show what is happening, not say it".

I recently came across this quote from Finnish director Aki Kaurismäki:

Literature is full of triangle dramas, but very few of them can beat Juhani Aho’s "Juha" (1998) for deepness of emotions and understanding of all three parties. The story is straight and strong, yet full of detail, just waiting to be ruined by cinematic means.
I had planned to film "Juha" almost as long as we had planned to make a silent movie with composer Anssi Tikanmäki. One day we were clever enough to put the ideas together and the catastrophe was ready.
Afterwards I’m not surprised that all efforts (except Tati’s "Mon Oncle") to make a silent film during the last decades have somehow failed; the easiness of explaining all by words has polluted our story telling to a pale shadow of original cinema.

 

[MRC01]

Step 1. Buy better speakers
Step 2. See Step #1

This helps, for example wifey hates the look of the big Magnepans but she can actually understand the dialog, which she can't do on normal speakers.
The great YouTube video from the OP mentions this factor, as well as several others.
Personally, I like the way they're making movie soundtracks these days. I like the big dynamic range; I put a lot of time, effort & money into my audio system and it's fun to put it to good use. I wish the audio industry would follow the same guide and restore dynamic range to music, instead of squashing it to death with dynamic range compressors.

 

[Blumlein 88]

I recently came across this quote from Finnish director Aki Kaurismäki:

Artistic poppycock.

While I agree a good story or movie should not be all dialog for the story to work. It is ridiculous as a reason to have fuzzy indistinct sound. Otherwise you should go all the way and make silent movies. Early silent movies weren't a superior artistic choice. Sound was not available.

 

[puppet]

I'm not complaining about subtitles for movies in another language. I usually switch the language and turn on subtitles for movies where the voices have been dubbed in using English. I should not have to do that for dialog in my native language.

To be clear, I'm talking about movies/shows produced in english by foreign cultures. Speaking for myself, some of the "slang" nature of regional "english" from around the world is easier to grasp w/subtitles engaged. I find it easier to put scenes into context for say a rapid fire, colloquial dialog exchange that would otherwise lose its intended meaning. It's "english" that has been taken on by a region and the use of subtitles in that context helps my understanding of the film and the people there. It's "english" native to that area of the country or that part of the world. Heh, sometimes the language is modified enough that I need help following along ... so subtitles have a use to me in that.

Just another reason for using subtitles besides the obvious audibility reasons posted so far.

 

[Talisman]

Well, I see it's not just my problem after all.
I find it incredibly frustrating having to turn the volume up to incredible levels just so I can properly understand what each other is saying, and then turn it down to lightning speed when an action scene starts.
I don't make it just a matter of dynamics and volumes, it's the quality of the spoken track that really sucks in many films.
Sometimes I'm forced, in spite of myself, to use the sound of the TV, because in this way I can turn up the volume and hear what they are saying and if an explosion starts, the tiny TV speaker can't do anything.
If I listen to certain films in the evening with my system I am forced to a frustrating and continuous volume up and down, to understand what they are saying and at the same time not to call the police from the neighbors

 

[radix]

I found with REW that my center had a dip around 1.0 - 1.5 kHz (I think a floor reflection). Lifting it 3" improved the intelligibility a lot. I also have boosted the center a few dB and shaped it a little in Audyssey MultiEQ to help my partner as she has some hearing loss.

 

[Keith_W]

Artistic poppycock.

While I agree a good story or movie should not be all dialog for the story to work. It is ridiculous as a reason to have fuzzy indistinct sound. Otherwise you should go all the way and make silent movies. Early silent movies weren't a superior artistic choice. Sound was not available.

Haha, well I am reminded of Tom Hanks in "Cast Away". Half the movie showed Tom Hanks staring at a coconut whilst marooned on an island with no dialogue. It was a great movie and made me really rate Tom Hanks as an actor.

 

[Blumlein 88]

To be clear, I'm talking about movies/shows produced in english by foreign cultures. Speaking for myself, some of the "slang" nature of regional "english" from around the world is easier to grasp w/subtitles engaged. I find it easier to put scenes into context for say a rapid fire, colloquial dialog exchange that would otherwise lose its intended meaning. It's "english" that has been taken on by a region and the use of subtitles in that context helps my understanding of the film and the people there. It's "english" native to that area of the country or that part of the world. Heh, sometimes the language is modified enough that I need help following along ... so subtitles have a use to me in that.

Just another reason for using subtitles besides the obvious audibility reasons posted so far.

That makes sense. I know some rapid Scottish English and even more so Irish English can be hard to follow. I have worked with people from Scottland or Ireland and it took awhile, but I understood them. Some people wanted to know what language that was, and looked funny when I said English.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Haha, well I am reminded of Tom Hanks in "Cast Away". Half the movie showed Tom Hanks staring at a coconut whilst marooned on an island with no dialogue. It was a great movie and made me really rate Tom Hanks as an actor.

That is a special case where it made sense. The movie wasn't silent either just no dialog. And later he did talk to Wilson and himself. There are scenes in movies bereft of dialog which done well are better than if there was dialog.

The opposite case is something like 12 Angry men. One room, and pretty much all dialog. You were left to engage your imagination just as someone on a jury has to do. It was artful use of this that made it such a good movie. Now if Christopher Nolan did a 12 Angry men remake would he use mumble tech for it? Maybe it would become 12 Old Angry men who all were hard of hearing.

 

[Blumlein 88]

A video on Cockney. With subtitles and translation. I believe this fellow might be the one who played the train engineer in the BBC series Sherwood. A nice show by the way.

 

[jsilvela]

I've seen a bunch of complaints about dialogs being muddled, here at ASR, by people with good speakers one would assume.

It's hit and miss in my experience. For example, the relatively recent (great) movie Arrival has clear dialog, even at some points when some character does mumble. Nolan ... well anyway, he also famously uses film stock and refuses digital, and has his quirks for sure.

What I wonder is if now that many movies are getting produced by Apple, Netflix, Amazon Prime etc, if the target delivery system will be a 5.1 or 7.1, instead of that ridiculous 128 channel idea...

 

[jsilvela]

Just thinking about 128 channel Atmos. Really? Are the audio engineers going to deal with those many tracks?
Seems like a bad idea.

For audio experts, may be a cool idea to test the limits of human perception etc.
But 128 for mass-market movies? Seems like the movie industry trying to convince us that home video is an awful thing.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Just thinking about 128 channel Atmos. Really? Are the audio engineers going to deal with those many tracks?
Seems like a bad idea.

For audio experts, may be a cool idea to test the limits of human perception etc.
But 128 for mass-market movies? Seems like the movie industry trying to convince us that home video is an awful thing.

I think in many movies they probably do have 128 different tracks or something resembling it. So for them having Atmos handle that many is less work in a sense than doing a mix down to 7.1 channels or whatever.

 

[jsilvela]

I think in many movies they probably do have 128 different tracks or something resembling it. So for them having Atmos handle that many is less work in a sense than doing a mix down to 7.1 channels or whatever.

Good point.
I had the impression Atmos was specialized in spatial audio. I was assuming those 128 channels would be for spatial distribution.

But I guess the average dialog-driven movie could still end up with a bunch of audio tracks from individual mics on the actors, some booms, etc.
Would those be useful for Atmos without further munging? Say, by specifying "audio track on main actor, left half of the picture" sort of information?

Even the movie-theater-experience purists like Nolan must know that their work will have a longer life in home reproduction, and that that is how it will be seen "for posterity".
Would make sense to pay a lot more attention to the quality of the downmixes.

 

[MattHooper]

The whole "I can't hear dialogue" thing anymore is interesting.

There have already been a variety of explanations put forth, and I think perhaps among the most convincing to me is the huge variety in the type and quality of playback systems people are using, as well as that combo with the various sound formats (and increased dynamic range, different micing techniques from the "older days"..).

Just anecdotally, as someone who does post sound work for film/TV, the dialogue in the mixing theaters is virtually always very intelligible. That is literally job one in just about every mix, and usually all sound is subordinate to dialogue quality/intelligibility. We just had a playback of a couple episodes of a Netflix Series I'm doing and, as usual, most of the notes concerned getting the dialogue sounding clear and natural and intelligible (and then music notes...then SFX...)

I usually watch movies in my own home theater and even though I don't listen loud I never have a problem understanding the dialogue. (It's a good room).

 

[MRC01]

... There have already been a variety of explanations put forth, and I think perhaps among the most convincing to me is the huge variety in the type and quality of playback systems people are using, as well as that combo with the various sound formats (and increased dynamic range, different micing techniques from the "older days"..). ...

Exactly. One of the topics in the video the OP posted was dynamic range. Watch a classic Bogart flick and the soundtrack doesn't have much dynamic range; nothing in the movie is much is louder than the dialog. Modern movies have much more dynamic range, audio can be way quieter than the peak levels of other sounds, which is realistic, and it works fine on high quality systems, whether at home or in theaters. But it overwhelms low quality audio systems.

 

[DavidMcRoy]

I was born and raised in coastal Alabama and my Mom's family were from Terrebonne Parish in south Louisiana, so I can understand almost anything. Almost. Some UK and Irish accents can befuddle me.

I concur, however, that super-wide dynamic range without properly deployed Dolby DialNorm (dialog normalization) is ridiculous. Without the ability of the end user to at least engage some dynamic compression, let alone adjust how much, is a real issue. I worked in broadcasting for over 40 years and I've long advocated consumer equipment with selectable amounts of dynamic range. Dolby Dialnorm could help a lot if it were universally and correctly implemented.

 

[Alice of Old Vincennes]

I solved dialog intelligibility with 3 way center. Infinity RC263.

 

[MRC01]