Discussion:
A good day for subtitle woes
(too old to reply)
Davey
2014-09-06 00:26:23 UTC
Permalink
BBC News: An item about e-cigarettes. For at least half a dozen uses of
the term, the subtitles rendered it as "session session". Once or
twice, ok; but many times?

An item on BBC Look East about "Tansy Beetles": John, Paul, et al. would
have been delighted, as this came up as "The Beatles".

Sometimes, there is no excuse.

When the BBC National News gives way to a short trailer for BBC Look
East, the subtitles are displayed showing the wording that the other
area (London? Manchester?) is getting, rather than what the local
newsreaders are saying. Again, this has been the case for months now.
--
Davey.
Martin
2014-09-06 08:37:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Davey
BBC News: An item about e-cigarettes. For at least half a dozen uses of
the term, the subtitles rendered it as "session session". Once or
twice, ok; but many times?
An item on BBC Look East about "Tansy Beetles": John, Paul, et al. would
have been delighted, as this came up as "The Beatles".
Sometimes, there is no excuse.
When the BBC National News gives way to a short trailer for BBC Look
East, the subtitles are displayed showing the wording that the other
area (London? Manchester?) is getting, rather than what the local
newsreaders are saying. Again, this has been the case for months now.
and for years subtitles from later in the programme sometimes appear as the main
News starts.
--
Martin in Zuid Holland
Davey
2014-09-06 10:29:35 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 06 Sep 2014 10:37:22 +0200
Post by Martin
Post by Davey
BBC News: An item about e-cigarettes. For at least half a dozen uses
of the term, the subtitles rendered it as "session session". Once or
twice, ok; but many times?
An item on BBC Look East about "Tansy Beetles": John, Paul, et al.
would have been delighted, as this came up as "The Beatles".
Sometimes, there is no excuse.
When the BBC National News gives way to a short trailer for BBC Look
East, the subtitles are displayed showing the wording that the other
area (London? Manchester?) is getting, rather than what the local
newsreaders are saying. Again, this has been the case for months now.
and for years subtitles from later in the programme sometimes appear
as the main News starts.
True also.
--
Davey.
Martin
2014-09-07 08:18:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Davey
On Sat, 06 Sep 2014 10:37:22 +0200
Post by Martin
Post by Davey
BBC News: An item about e-cigarettes. For at least half a dozen uses
of the term, the subtitles rendered it as "session session". Once or
twice, ok; but many times?
An item on BBC Look East about "Tansy Beetles": John, Paul, et al.
would have been delighted, as this came up as "The Beatles".
Sometimes, there is no excuse.
When the BBC National News gives way to a short trailer for BBC Look
East, the subtitles are displayed showing the wording that the other
area (London? Manchester?) is getting, rather than what the local
newsreaders are saying. Again, this has been the case for months now.
and for years subtitles from later in the programme sometimes appear
as the main News starts.
True also.
Sometimes that's the only time you see them.
--
Martin in Zuid Holland
s***@gowanhill.com
2014-09-06 12:07:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Davey
BBC News: An item about e-cigarettes. For at least half a dozen uses of
the term, the subtitles rendered it as "session session". Once or
twice, ok; but many times?
I know the news is live*, but it's usually scripted and read from an electronic prompt screen. I've never understood why that script can't be fed through to the subtitles.

*Although a lot of 'inserts' aren't.

Owain
Ian Jackson
2014-09-06 12:41:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@gowanhill.com
Post by Davey
BBC News: An item about e-cigarettes. For at least half a dozen uses of
the term, the subtitles rendered it as "session session". Once or
twice, ok; but many times?
I know the news is live*, but it's usually scripted and read from an
electronic prompt screen. I've never understood why that script can't
be fed through to the subtitles.
*Although a lot of 'inserts' aren't.
My wife relies totally on the subtitles, and sometimes they drive her
mad. There's no need for the news to be absolutely 'real-time'. There
could easily be a short delay to allow them to get the sub-titles right
(maybe there is, but they can't be bothered). However, it's not just
live programmes that have problems - many recorded programmes are nearly
as bad.
--
Ian
Davey
2014-09-06 13:26:54 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 6 Sep 2014 13:41:59 +0100
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by s***@gowanhill.com
Post by Davey
BBC News: An item about e-cigarettes. For at least half a dozen
uses of the term, the subtitles rendered it as "session session".
Once or twice, ok; but many times?
I know the news is live*, but it's usually scripted and read from an
electronic prompt screen. I've never understood why that script
can't be fed through to the subtitles.
*Although a lot of 'inserts' aren't.
My wife relies totally on the subtitles, and sometimes they drive her
mad. There's no need for the news to be absolutely 'real-time'. There
could easily be a short delay to allow them to get the sub-titles
right (maybe there is, but they can't be bothered). However, it's not
just live programmes that have problems - many recorded programmes
are nearly as bad.
Yes, that's the problem. I understand that live news might have
problems, and I accept that, but the e-cigarette item was obviously a
previously prepared report, and for that there is no excuse.
--
Davey.
Martin
2014-09-07 08:22:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Davey
On Sat, 6 Sep 2014 13:41:59 +0100
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by s***@gowanhill.com
Post by Davey
BBC News: An item about e-cigarettes. For at least half a dozen
uses of the term, the subtitles rendered it as "session session".
Once or twice, ok; but many times?
I know the news is live*, but it's usually scripted and read from an
electronic prompt screen. I've never understood why that script
can't be fed through to the subtitles.
*Although a lot of 'inserts' aren't.
My wife relies totally on the subtitles, and sometimes they drive her
mad. There's no need for the news to be absolutely 'real-time'. There
could easily be a short delay to allow them to get the sub-titles
right (maybe there is, but they can't be bothered). However, it's not
just live programmes that have problems - many recorded programmes
are nearly as bad.
Yes, that's the problem. I understand that live news might have
problems, and I accept that, but the e-cigarette item was obviously a
previously prepared report, and for that there is no excuse.
Basically recorded information is linked by apparently live news readers.
Often the news varies very little during the day. Subtitle mistakes that appear
in the morning or at lunch time are still there in the evening.
--
Martin in Zuid Holland
Paul Ratcliffe
2014-09-06 22:58:59 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 6 Sep 2014 13:41:59 +0100, Ian Jackson
Post by Ian Jackson
My wife relies totally on the subtitles, and sometimes they drive her
mad. There's no need for the news to be absolutely 'real-time'. There
could easily be a short delay to allow them to get the sub-titles right
(maybe there is, but they can't be bothered).
How would putting a delay in help? And how much delay would you
propose? The output rate still needs to be the same as the input rate.
Either you keep up or you don't. A delay is irrelevant.
Ian Jackson
2014-09-07 07:02:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Ratcliffe
On Sat, 6 Sep 2014 13:41:59 +0100, Ian Jackson
Post by Ian Jackson
My wife relies totally on the subtitles, and sometimes they drive her
mad. There's no need for the news to be absolutely 'real-time'. There
could easily be a short delay to allow them to get the sub-titles right
(maybe there is, but they can't be bothered).
How would putting a delay in help? And how much delay would you
propose? The output rate still needs to be the same as the input rate.
Either you keep up or you don't. A delay is irrelevant.
A delay would help to enable the manual correctors to get their manual
corrections right (assuming they actually do manual corrections).
--
Ian
tim.....
2014-09-07 12:53:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Paul Ratcliffe
On Sat, 6 Sep 2014 13:41:59 +0100, Ian Jackson
Post by Ian Jackson
My wife relies totally on the subtitles, and sometimes they drive her
mad. There's no need for the news to be absolutely 'real-time'. There
could easily be a short delay to allow them to get the sub-titles right
(maybe there is, but they can't be bothered).
How would putting a delay in help? And how much delay would you
propose? The output rate still needs to be the same as the input rate.
Either you keep up or you don't. A delay is irrelevant.
A delay would help to enable the manual correctors to get their manual
corrections right (assuming they actually do manual corrections).
and it would help to get them inserted "inline" - not just added to the end
of the sentence that they are correcting

tim
Brian Gaff
2014-09-06 13:09:49 UTC
Permalink
Perhaps the BBC personnel are all being replaced by wax dummies?
Brian
--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
Post by Davey
BBC News: An item about e-cigarettes. For at least half a dozen uses of
the term, the subtitles rendered it as "session session". Once or
twice, ok; but many times?
An item on BBC Look East about "Tansy Beetles": John, Paul, et al. would
have been delighted, as this came up as "The Beatles".
Sometimes, there is no excuse.
When the BBC National News gives way to a short trailer for BBC Look
East, the subtitles are displayed showing the wording that the other
area (London? Manchester?) is getting, rather than what the local
newsreaders are saying. Again, this has been the case for months now.
--
Davey.
The Other John
2014-09-06 15:52:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Gaff
Perhaps the BBC personnel are all being replaced by wax dummies?
Nah! They've been replaced by e-people! ;)
--
TOJ.
Norman Wells
2014-09-06 17:07:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Other John
Post by Brian Gaff
Perhaps the BBC personnel are all being replaced by wax dummies?
Nah! They've been replaced by e-people! ;)
Isn't that actually the truth? Surely they use voice recognition software now, not actual people?
Davey
2014-09-06 17:24:11 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 6 Sep 2014 10:07:35 -0700 (PDT)
Post by Norman Wells
Post by The Other John
Post by Brian Gaff
Perhaps the BBC personnel are all being replaced by wax dummies?
Nah! They've been replaced by e-people! ;)
Isn't that actually the truth? Surely they use voice recognition
software now, not actual people?
I believe it's actually combination. They need the people to correct
the mistakes it makes.
--
Davey.
Dickie mint
2014-09-06 19:49:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Davey
I believe it's actually combination. They need the people to correct
the mistakes it makes.
I think the subtitles are produced by "re-speakers". A subtitler, whose
computer had "learnt" his/her speech accent "re-speaks" the words they
hear on screen. Voice Recognition then converts their speech to
subtitles. There's bound to be BBC R & D White Papers on it!

Richard
Dickie mint
2014-09-06 19:59:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dickie mint
Post by Davey
I believe it's actually combination. They need the people to correct
the mistakes it makes.
I think the subtitles are produced by "re-speakers". A subtitler, whose
computer had "learnt" his/her speech accent "re-speaks" the words they
hear on screen. Voice Recognition then converts their speech to
subtitles. There's bound to be BBC R & D White Papers on it!
Richard
BBC R & D are looking in to subtitle quality:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/projects/live-subtitle-quality

Richard
NY
2014-09-06 21:19:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dickie mint
Post by Dickie mint
Post by Davey
I believe it's actually combination. They need the people to correct
the mistakes it makes.
I think the subtitles are produced by "re-speakers". A subtitler, whose
computer had "learnt" his/her speech accent "re-speaks" the words they
hear on screen. Voice Recognition then converts their speech to
subtitles. There's bound to be BBC R & D White Papers on it!
Richard
http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/projects/live-subtitle-quality
For genuine live, off the cuff TV, the subtitles need to be produced in real
time and the best way is probably respeakers and voice recognition software.
But everything else is from a script, whether it be drama or even a
newsreader's or reporter's words. Surely it's not beyond the wit of man for
the text that goes to the newsreader's autocue to go to the subtitles as
well, or for a reporter out in the field to email his script that he is
reading along with sending the video file of his report.

Only as a very last report should subtitles be produced by voice recognition
or by someone typing what they hear.
Mark Carver
2014-09-08 14:59:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by NY
Surely it's not beyond the wit
of man for the text that goes to the newsreader's autocue to go to the
subtitles as well,
Which is exactly how some broadcasters do it. However the only UK
broadcaster I'm aware of that used that method was TVS/Meridian back in
the 90s.
--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.
Davey
2014-09-06 22:48:53 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 06 Sep 2014 20:59:06 +0100
Post by Dickie mint
http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/projects/live-subtitle-quality
I love the part where it says: "A user study was carried out in December
2012 with a broad sample of people who regularly use subtitles when
watching television (photo above)." and the photo is of an empty chair
in front of a TV set. The Invisible Men?
--
Davey.
Davey
2014-09-06 23:11:25 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 6 Sep 2014 23:48:53 +0100
Post by Davey
On Sat, 06 Sep 2014 20:59:06 +0100
Post by Dickie mint
http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/projects/live-subtitle-quality
Note that there is a video there about the making of subtitles.
--
Davey.
PeterC
2014-09-07 07:56:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Davey
On Sat, 6 Sep 2014 23:48:53 +0100
Post by Davey
On Sat, 06 Sep 2014 20:59:06 +0100
Post by Dickie mint
http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/projects/live-subtitle-quality
Note that there is a video there about the making of subtitles.
Does it have - oh shit, we're stuck in a loop - and which bastard joined the
tape with a 180 deg. twist?!
--
Peter.
The gods will stay away
whilst religions hold sway
Martin
2014-09-07 08:28:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Davey
On Sat, 6 Sep 2014 23:48:53 +0100
Post by Davey
On Sat, 06 Sep 2014 20:59:06 +0100
Post by Dickie mint
http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/projects/live-subtitle-quality
Note that there is a video there about the making of subtitles.
with errors in its subtitles?

I hate the carpet.
--
Martin in Zuid Holland
Davey
2014-09-07 10:47:16 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 07 Sep 2014 10:28:51 +0200
Post by Martin
Post by Davey
On Sat, 6 Sep 2014 23:48:53 +0100
Post by Davey
On Sat, 06 Sep 2014 20:59:06 +0100
Post by Dickie mint
http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/projects/live-subtitle-quality
Note that there is a video there about the making of subtitles.
with errors in its subtitles?
I hate the carpet.
Better that then "I 'ate the carpet".
--
Davey.
Martin
2014-09-08 07:51:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Davey
On Sun, 07 Sep 2014 10:28:51 +0200
Post by Martin
Post by Davey
On Sat, 6 Sep 2014 23:48:53 +0100
Post by Davey
On Sat, 06 Sep 2014 20:59:06 +0100
Post by Dickie mint
http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/projects/live-subtitle-quality
Note that there is a video there about the making of subtitles.
with errors in its subtitles?
I hate the carpet.
Better that then "I 'ate the carpet".
LOL
--
Martin in Zuid Holland
Martin
2014-09-08 07:52:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Davey
On Sun, 07 Sep 2014 10:28:51 +0200
Post by Martin
Post by Davey
On Sat, 6 Sep 2014 23:48:53 +0100
Post by Davey
On Sat, 06 Sep 2014 20:59:06 +0100
Post by Dickie mint
http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/projects/live-subtitle-quality
Note that there is a video there about the making of subtitles.
with errors in its subtitles?
I hate the carpet.
Better that then "I 'ate the carpet".
"I 'ate the car pet!
--
Martin in Zuid Holland
Martin
2014-09-07 08:26:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Davey
On Sat, 06 Sep 2014 20:59:06 +0100
Post by Dickie mint
http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/projects/live-subtitle-quality
I love the part where it says: "A user study was carried out in December
2012 with a broad sample of people who regularly use subtitles when
watching television (photo above)." and the photo is of an empty chair
in front of a TV set. The Invisible Men?
Zero sample size fits all?
--
Martin in Zuid Holland
Martin
2014-09-07 08:24:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dickie mint
Post by Dickie mint
Post by Davey
I believe it's actually combination. They need the people to correct
the mistakes it makes.
I think the subtitles are produced by "re-speakers". A subtitler, whose
computer had "learnt" his/her speech accent "re-speaks" the words they
hear on screen. Voice Recognition then converts their speech to
subtitles. There's bound to be BBC R & D White Papers on it!
Richard
http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/projects/live-subtitle-quality
Not half as much as users do. :-)
--
Martin in Zuid Holland
tim.....
2014-09-07 12:50:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dickie mint
Post by Dickie mint
Post by Davey
I believe it's actually combination. They need the people to correct
the mistakes it makes.
I think the subtitles are produced by "re-speakers". A subtitler, whose
computer had "learnt" his/her speech accent "re-speaks" the words they
hear on screen. Voice Recognition then converts their speech to
subtitles. There's bound to be BBC R & D White Papers on it!
Richard
http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/projects/live-subtitle-quality
IMHO the best thing that the Broadcasters could do to improve live
subtitling is not to use it when the program isn't actually being broadcast
live

tim
s***@gowanhill.com
2014-09-07 22:55:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim.....
IMHO the best thing that the Broadcasters could do to improve live
subtitling is not to use it when the program isn't actually being broadcast
live
The best thing would be to return to using proper palantypists (stenographers) rather than respeakers and voice recognition software.



Owain
NY
2014-09-08 07:55:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@gowanhill.com
Post by tim.....
IMHO the best thing that the Broadcasters could do to improve live
subtitling is not to use it when the program isn't actually being broadcast
live
The best thing would be to return to using proper palantypists
(stenographers) rather than respeakers and voice recognition software.
When did broadcasters change from using Palantypists to voice recognition
software? Because both are phonetic, they both have the *potential* for
mistaking words which are pronounced similarly.

Presumably subtitles on recoded programmes are better because they are
driven from a script of what the actors or presenter plan to say, rather
than from someone hearing what is said. And if they do use someone hearing
what was said (and entering it either by Palantype or by respeaking and
voice recognition), presumably the reason that the subtitles are more
accurate is that there is time for someone to go through and check/correct
and typos or mis-hearings afterwards.

It always amuses me when watching DVDs for films that you occasionally get
lines, especially said by bit parts, which are faithfully listed in the
subtitles but are completely inaudible, even if you go back and replay with
the volume turned up to max. That's got to be a case of "this is what they
were supposed to say" rather than "this is what actually made it through to
the finished product". That's the danger of relying entirely on the script
and not also checking what was actually said.
Ian Jackson
2014-09-08 08:26:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by NY
It always amuses me when watching DVDs for films that you occasionally
get lines, especially said by bit parts, which are faithfully listed in
the subtitles but are completely inaudible, even if you go back and
replay with the volume turned up to max. That's got to be a case of
"this is what they were supposed to say" rather than "this is what
actually made it through to the finished product". That's the danger of
relying entirely on the script and not also checking what was actually said.
Why do you single out DVDs? A lot of TV dramas are just as bad (remember
'Jamaica Inn' - although in this case, even the main actors often
mumbled). That's one of the reasons I usually watch with subtitles on,
even though my hearing's OK.
--
Ian
NY
2014-09-08 09:15:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by NY
It always amuses me when watching DVDs for films that you occasionally get
lines, especially said by bit parts, which are faithfully listed in the
subtitles but are completely inaudible, even if you go back and replay
with the volume turned up to max. That's got to be a case of "this is what
they were supposed to say" rather than "this is what actually made it
through to the finished product". That's the danger of relying entirely on
the script and not also checking what was actually said.
Why do you single out DVDs? A lot of TV dramas are just as bad (remember
'Jamaica Inn' - although in this case, even the main actors often
mumbled). That's one of the reasons I usually watch with subtitles on,
even though my hearing's OK.
Because I've noticed it a lot more with films on DVD than with television
programmes. I'm not talking about mumbled lines; I'm talking about lines
which were either never said or else were suppressed from the sound mix - a
different issue to the "Jamaica Inn mumble" problem. I fell sorry for
everyone who worked on Jamaica Inn because it could have been a good
production if only people had been able to hear the dialogue: that's all
people will remember it for, which is a shame. (As a matter of interest, in
the book of Jamaica Inn, was the leading female character Mary Yellan
described as being as androgynous and plug-ugly as Jessica Brown Findlay
portrayed her?)
Roderick Stewart
2014-09-08 09:07:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by NY
It always amuses me when watching DVDs for films that you occasionally get
lines, especially said by bit parts, which are faithfully listed in the
subtitles but are completely inaudible, even if you go back and replay with
the volume turned up to max. That's got to be a case of "this is what they
were supposed to say" rather than "this is what actually made it through to
the finished product". That's the danger of relying entirely on the script
and not also checking what was actually said.
That's what post-production scripts are for. Maybe they don't do them
for movies?

Rod.
Martin
2014-09-08 09:23:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by NY
Post by s***@gowanhill.com
Post by tim.....
IMHO the best thing that the Broadcasters could do to improve live
subtitling is not to use it when the program isn't actually being broadcast
live
The best thing would be to return to using proper palantypists
(stenographers) rather than respeakers and voice recognition software.
When did broadcasters change from using Palantypists to voice recognition
software? Because both are phonetic, they both have the *potential* for
mistaking words which are pronounced similarly.
Presumably subtitles on recoded programmes are better because they are
driven from a script of what the actors or presenter plan to say, rather
than from someone hearing what is said.
Sometimes subtitles on recorded programmes, that were never transmitted live,
are atrocious too.
Post by NY
And if they do use someone hearing
what was said (and entering it either by Palantype or by respeaking and
voice recognition), presumably the reason that the subtitles are more
accurate is that there is time for someone to go through and check/correct
and typos or mis-hearings afterwards.
It always amuses me when watching DVDs for films that you occasionally get
lines, especially said by bit parts, which are faithfully listed in the
subtitles but are completely inaudible, even if you go back and replay with
the volume turned up to max. That's got to be a case of "this is what they
were supposed to say" rather than "this is what actually made it through to
the finished product". That's the danger of relying entirely on the script
and not also checking what was actually said.
Yesterday I watched The Dam Busters for the first time since I was a kid. The
subtitles were interesting to say the least. Most of the time, the dog's name
was completely omitted from the subtitles, but not always. The dog's name was
the code word for a dam being breached. I half expected to see Bingo! in the
subtitles, but instead the dog's name appeared.
--
Martin in Zuid Holland
NY
2014-09-08 09:28:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin
Yesterday I watched The Dam Busters for the first time since I was a kid. The
subtitles were interesting to say the least. Most of the time, the dog's name
was completely omitted from the subtitles, but not always. The dog's name was
the code word for a dam being breached. I half expected to see Bingo! in the
subtitles, but instead the dog's name appeared.
Ah yes, the N-word that relates to the fact that the dog was black.
Difficult one. When it featured in the plot as the code word for the
mission, it's difficult to know how to make that acceptable to modern
audiences, short of renaming the dog and the codeword throughout the film -
and choosing a word that doesn't differ too much from the lip movements of
the actors.
s***@gowanhill.com
2014-09-08 09:42:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by NY
Ah yes, the N-word that relates to the fact that the dog was black.
Difficult one.
I assume that N-word is now more offensive than both F- and C- words.

Personally I think it's insulting to the memory of the crew to change it as it suggests that Guy Gibson chose a dog's name that was racist, which of course it wasn't at the time. It's also historically inaccurate.

I understand that in some remakes the informal variant Nigsy is used; I wonder whether that will eventually become an insult too.

Owain
David Kennedy
2014-09-08 09:54:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@gowanhill.com
Post by NY
Ah yes, the N-word that relates to the fact that the dog was black.
Difficult one.
I assume that N-word is now more offensive than both F- and C- words.
Personally I think it's insulting to the memory of the crew to change it as it suggests that Guy Gibson chose a dog's name that was racist, which of course it wasn't at the time. It's also historically inaccurate.
I understand that in some remakes the informal variant Nigsy is used; I wonder whether that will eventually become an insult too.
Owain
Digger

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dam_Busters_%28film%29#Remake>
--
David Kennedy

http://www.anindianinexile.com
Martin
2014-09-08 10:12:46 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 08 Sep 2014 10:54:28 +0100, David Kennedy
Post by David Kennedy
Post by s***@gowanhill.com
Post by NY
Ah yes, the N-word that relates to the fact that the dog was black.
Difficult one.
I assume that N-word is now more offensive than both F- and C- words.
Personally I think it's insulting to the memory of the crew to change it as it suggests that Guy Gibson chose a dog's name that was racist, which of course it wasn't at the time. It's also historically inaccurate.
I understand that in some remakes the informal variant Nigsy is used; I wonder whether that will eventually become an insult too.
Owain
Digger
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dam_Busters_%28film%29#Remake>
The original film was made in b/w, which had the advantage of being able to use
authentic film for some sequences.
--
Martin in Zuid Holland
Ian Jackson
2014-09-08 11:17:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin
On Mon, 08 Sep 2014 10:54:28 +0100, David Kennedy
Post by David Kennedy
Post by s***@gowanhill.com
Post by NY
Ah yes, the N-word that relates to the fact that the dog was black.
Difficult one.
I assume that N-word is now more offensive than both F- and C- words.
Personally I think it's insulting to the memory of the crew to
change it as it suggests that Guy Gibson chose a dog's name that was
racist, which of course it wasn't at the time. It's also historically
inaccurate.
I understand that in some remakes the informal variant Nigsy is
used; I wonder whether that will eventually become an insult too.
Owain
Digger
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dam_Busters_%28film%29#Remake>
The original film was made in b/w, which had the advantage of being able to use
authentic film for some sequences.
A couple of unfortunate very unauthentic bits are the explosions at the
dams. They stand out as looking so unreal. It may be sacrilege, but
these could benefit from makeover with a touch of modern CGI. But
'Nigger' should remain 'Nigger'
--
Ian
Davey
2014-09-08 11:23:48 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 8 Sep 2014 12:17:23 +0100
Post by Ian Jackson
A couple of unfortunate very unauthentic bits are the explosions at
the dams. They stand out as looking so unreal. It may be sacrilege,
but these could benefit from makeover with a touch of modern CGI. But
'Nigger' should remain 'Nigger'
Totally agreed on both counts. I have always hated those explosions,
they look so false, it spoils the film.
And the dog's name was Nigger, dammit, so Nigger it should stay.
--
Davey.
NY
2014-09-08 13:53:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Davey
On Mon, 8 Sep 2014 12:17:23 +0100
Post by Ian Jackson
A couple of unfortunate very unauthentic bits are the explosions at
the dams. They stand out as looking so unreal. It may be sacrilege,
but these could benefit from makeover with a touch of modern CGI. But
'Nigger' should remain 'Nigger'
Totally agreed on both counts. I have always hated those explosions,
they look so false, it spoils the film.
And the dog's name was Nigger, dammit, so Nigger it should stay.
It all depends whether the people being referred to (as opposed to
holier-than-thou onlookers) take offence.

My grandparents had some German friends whom they first met as part of a
burying-the-hatchet scheme for British and German people who did similar
jobs to meet each other on an exchange scheme after WWII. The man spoke very
good English (even if his phraseology did have a slightly camp sound to it)
whereas his wife was less fluent - but she made up for her lack of fluency
with a Brian Blessed power-assisted voice and a no-holds-barred lack of
inhibition - she would say whatever she wanted (and what other people were
probably thinking too) and get away with it.

One day when Herr and Frau B came to stay with Grandpa and Grandma, Herr and
Frau B went up to London by train. Somehow they got separated - I think Herr
B, ever the gentleman (!), pushed his way onto a bus and then realised that
Frau B wasn't right behind him. The next that Grandpa and Grandma knew was
when Frau B rang from the station and asked to be collected. Grandpa and
Grandma drove down to the station and found Frau B in the waiting room with
a large West Indian porter, with both of them drinking tea and chatting
away. "I see this Big Nigger and I tell him I lose my husband in London. And
he laughed. I like this Big Nigger". Bystanders were looking on horrified
("as if their mouths were going to implode" was how grandpa described it
afterwards) as Frau B kept using the phrase but the porter didn't seem
offended and confessed "Well, it's the first time I've been called a Big
Nigger - but fair enough, it *is* what I am - I am big and I am a nigger".

And if he, the person that Frau B was describing, wasn't offended, then
that's the end of the matter. There are far too many people around who seem
to be offended and insulted that other people *aren't* offended.

So it depends how words are used. If they are used purely descriptively,
that's a lot less offensive than if they are used as a racial insult.
Max Demian
2014-09-08 15:21:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin
On Mon, 08 Sep 2014 10:54:28 +0100, David Kennedy
Post by David Kennedy
Post by s***@gowanhill.com
Post by NY
Ah yes, the N-word that relates to the fact that the dog was black.
Difficult one.
I assume that N-word is now more offensive than both F- and C- words.
Personally I think it's insulting to the memory of the crew to change it
as it suggests that Guy Gibson chose a dog's name that was racist, which
of course it wasn't at the time. It's also historically inaccurate.
I understand that in some remakes the informal variant Nigsy is used; I
wonder whether that will eventually become an insult too.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dam_Busters_%28film%29#Remake>
The original film was made in b/w, which had the advantage of being able to use
authentic film for some sequences.
But not able to use authentic cylindrical (rather than spherical) bombs with
the mechanism to introduce a back spin.

I suppose the RAF thought they might have to re-do the bombing if the
Germans were naughty after the War.
--
Max Demian
Martin
2014-09-09 08:08:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Max Demian
Post by Martin
On Mon, 08 Sep 2014 10:54:28 +0100, David Kennedy
Post by David Kennedy
Post by s***@gowanhill.com
Post by NY
Ah yes, the N-word that relates to the fact that the dog was black.
Difficult one.
I assume that N-word is now more offensive than both F- and C- words.
Personally I think it's insulting to the memory of the crew to change it
as it suggests that Guy Gibson chose a dog's name that was racist, which
of course it wasn't at the time. It's also historically inaccurate.
I understand that in some remakes the informal variant Nigsy is used; I
wonder whether that will eventually become an insult too.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dam_Busters_%28film%29#Remake>
The original film was made in b/w, which had the advantage of being able to use
authentic film for some sequences.
But not able to use authentic cylindrical (rather than spherical) bombs with
the mechanism to introduce a back spin.
You've been looking at IMDB. :-)
Post by Max Demian
I suppose the RAF thought they might have to re-do the bombing if the
Germans were naughty after the War.
whilst using Enigma to pass messages.
--
Martin in Zuid Holland
Martin
2014-09-08 10:09:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by NY
Post by Martin
Yesterday I watched The Dam Busters for the first time since I was a kid. The
subtitles were interesting to say the least. Most of the time, the dog's name
was completely omitted from the subtitles, but not always. The dog's name was
the code word for a dam being breached. I half expected to see Bingo! in the
subtitles, but instead the dog's name appeared.
Ah yes, the N-word that relates to the fact that the dog was black.
Difficult one. When it featured in the plot as the code word for the
mission, it's difficult to know how to make that acceptable to modern
audiences, short of renaming the dog and the codeword throughout the film -
and choosing a word that doesn't differ too much from the lip movements of
the actors.
Apparently that was what was done to the US version. A flying fortress film clip
was edited into the film too.
--
Martin in Zuid Holland
Roderick Stewart
2014-09-08 13:19:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by NY
Post by Martin
Yesterday I watched The Dam Busters for the first time since I was a kid. The
subtitles were interesting to say the least. Most of the time, the dog's name
was completely omitted from the subtitles, but not always. The dog's name was
the code word for a dam being breached. I half expected to see Bingo! in the
subtitles, but instead the dog's name appeared.
Ah yes, the N-word that relates to the fact that the dog was black.
Difficult one. When it featured in the plot as the code word for the
mission, it's difficult to know how to make that acceptable to modern
audiences, short of renaming the dog and the codeword throughout the film -
and choosing a word that doesn't differ too much from the lip movements of
the actors.
I think tampering with the original in this way is a bigger insult
than the word they would be trying to obliterate (and not just because
it would be doomed to failure anyway because everybody knows it, and
it's a key feature of the plot).

They could just assign a remake to Quentin Tarantino. He seems to be
able to get away with it.

Rod.
Martin
2014-09-09 08:05:04 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 08 Sep 2014 14:19:23 +0100, Roderick Stewart
Post by Roderick Stewart
Post by NY
Post by Martin
Yesterday I watched The Dam Busters for the first time since I was a kid. The
subtitles were interesting to say the least. Most of the time, the dog's name
was completely omitted from the subtitles, but not always. The dog's name was
the code word for a dam being breached. I half expected to see Bingo! in the
subtitles, but instead the dog's name appeared.
Ah yes, the N-word that relates to the fact that the dog was black.
Difficult one. When it featured in the plot as the code word for the
mission, it's difficult to know how to make that acceptable to modern
audiences, short of renaming the dog and the codeword throughout the film -
and choosing a word that doesn't differ too much from the lip movements of
the actors.
I think tampering with the original in this way is a bigger insult
than the word they would be trying to obliterate (and not just because
it would be doomed to failure anyway because everybody knows it, and
it's a key feature of the plot).
They could just assign a remake to Quentin Tarantino. He seems to be
able to get away with it.
In his version the RAF would not be involved. Bombs dropped from a minimum of
20,000 feet would do the damage.
--
Martin in Zuid Holland
Martin
2014-09-08 07:56:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@gowanhill.com
Post by tim.....
IMHO the best thing that the Broadcasters could do to improve live
subtitling is not to use it when the program isn't actually being broadcast
live
The best thing would be to return to using proper palantypists (stenographers) rather than respeakers and voice recognition software.
http://youtu.be/bf2mbAoXfGU
Yes but that is so old fashioned and works.

Records of what is said in court and in both houses of parliament are/were
generated the same way.
--
Martin in Zuid Holland
Martin
2014-09-07 08:24:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dickie mint
Post by Davey
I believe it's actually combination. They need the people to correct
the mistakes it makes.
I think the subtitles are produced by "re-speakers". A subtitler, whose
computer had "learnt" his/her speech accent "re-speaks" the words they
hear on screen. Voice Recognition then converts their speech to
subtitles.
and a person tries to correct errors in real time.
Post by Dickie mint
There's bound to be BBC R & D White Papers on it!
and committees.
Post by Dickie mint
Richard
--
Martin in Zuid Holland
Johny B Good
2014-09-06 21:18:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Davey
On Sat, 6 Sep 2014 10:07:35 -0700 (PDT)
Post by Norman Wells
Post by The Other John
Post by Brian Gaff
Perhaps the BBC personnel are all being replaced by wax dummies?
Nah! They've been replaced by e-people! ;)
Isn't that actually the truth? Surely they use voice recognition
software now, not actual people?
I believe it's actually combination. They need the people to correct
the mistakes it makes.
More likely they need the people to keep on top of the mistakes it
makes. I'd imagine, not too easy a task when it's a live broadcast.
--
J B Good
Martin
2014-09-07 08:29:49 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 06 Sep 2014 22:18:19 +0100, Johny B Good
Post by Johny B Good
Post by Davey
On Sat, 6 Sep 2014 10:07:35 -0700 (PDT)
Post by Norman Wells
Post by The Other John
Post by Brian Gaff
Perhaps the BBC personnel are all being replaced by wax dummies?
Nah! They've been replaced by e-people! ;)
Isn't that actually the truth? Surely they use voice recognition
software now, not actual people?
I believe it's actually combination. They need the people to correct
the mistakes it makes.
More likely they need the people to keep on top of the mistakes it
makes. I'd imagine, not too easy a task when it's a live broadcast.
Very little of the news is live, most is recorded linked live.
--
Martin in Zuid Holland
Martin
2014-09-07 08:22:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Other John
Post by Brian Gaff
Perhaps the BBC personnel are all being replaced by wax dummies?
Nah! They've been replaced by e-people! ;)
e-celebs?
--
Martin in Zuid Holland
Paul Ratcliffe
2014-09-06 23:02:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Gaff
Perhaps the BBC personnel are all being replaced by wax dummies?
Like you you patronising ignorant fucker?
Subtitles are handled by an external company now.
Ian Jackson
2014-09-07 07:03:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Ratcliffe
Post by Brian Gaff
Perhaps the BBC personnel are all being replaced by wax dummies?
Like you you patronising ignorant fucker?
Subtitles are handled by an external company now.
And, it seems, often handled extremely badly.
--
Ian
Davey
2014-09-07 10:50:08 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 06 Sep 2014 23:02:23 GMT
Post by Paul Ratcliffe
Post by Brian Gaff
Perhaps the BBC personnel are all being replaced by wax dummies?
Like you you patronising ignorant fucker?
Subtitles are handled by an external company now.
A contractor is still responsible for its sub-contractor's work.
--
Davey.
David Taylor
2014-09-08 09:14:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Davey
BBC News: An item about e-cigarettes. For at least half a dozen uses of
the term, the subtitles rendered it as "session session". Once or
twice, ok; but many times?
An item on BBC Look East about "Tansy Beetles": John, Paul, et al. would
have been delighted, as this came up as "The Beatles".
Sometimes, there is no excuse.
I enjoyed seeing Sky News briefly in the pub on Saturday night...

The subtitles rendered 'Miliband' as 'meet a band'.

Then they had an on-screen graphic to illustrate proton beam therapy,
which had a label to indicate the location of the 'spinal chord'.
--
David Taylor
NY
2014-09-08 09:24:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Taylor
Then they had an on-screen graphic to illustrate proton beam therapy,
which had a label to indicate the location of the 'spinal chord'.
If you pluck four spinal cords which are tuned to C E G C, maybe that's a
spinal chord. :-)
Martin
2014-09-08 10:13:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Taylor
Post by Davey
BBC News: An item about e-cigarettes. For at least half a dozen uses of
the term, the subtitles rendered it as "session session". Once or
twice, ok; but many times?
An item on BBC Look East about "Tansy Beetles": John, Paul, et al. would
have been delighted, as this came up as "The Beatles".
Sometimes, there is no excuse.
I enjoyed seeing Sky News briefly in the pub on Saturday night...
The subtitles rendered 'Miliband' as 'meet a band'.
Then they had an on-screen graphic to illustrate proton beam therapy,
which had a label to indicate the location of the 'spinal chord'.
LOL
--
Martin in Zuid Holland
Loading...