Fun with subtitles

[Davey]

The documentary showing the journey of the steam engine 'Tornado' and a
train of carriages up the North-East coast of England shows a
traditional fish smoke-house. The subtitles explained that, in the 15th
and 16th centuries, heron was a staple food for most people, as it was
common and easily caught. I had no idea that the bird was that common.
Then it showed a traditional herring smoke-house, which made much more
sense.
I can excuse a mistake like that during a live broadcast, but in a
filmed and edited documentary, there really is no excuse for editing
mistakes like that.
Unless, pf course, they don't really care...

[Brian Gaff (Sofa)]

Yes, I know what you mean. Things are often missed when filming stuff, like
the wrong sort of tv aerial for the period, plastic drain covers when they
were normally cast iron back then. Road markings that only occurred long
after the period.
This was going on back in the 90s when I could see, and I often wondered
where the research was done.

I'm assuming this sort of thing has only got worse.
Brian
--
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
***@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!

Post by Davey
The documentary showing the journey of the steam engine 'Tornado' and a
train of carriages up the North-East coast of England shows a
traditional fish smoke-house. The subtitles explained that, in the 15th
and 16th centuries, heron was a staple food for most people, as it was
common and easily caught. I had no idea that the bird was that common.
Then it showed a traditional herring smoke-house, which made much more
sense.
I can excuse a mistake like that during a live broadcast, but in a
filmed and edited documentary, there really is no excuse for editing
mistakes like that.
Unless, pf course, they don't really care...

I suspect it is not so much that they don't care but more that they don't
know the difference between a heron and a herring. It also shows up far
far too often when they do things like a piece of video reversed left to
right for effect and fail to realise that people will notice the
background, or they use a modern phone in a 50/60's drama, or (as in
Endeavour) they use an American desk phone which would never have been
available at that time.
A good example of failure to pay attention was in the new Dalgliesh on Ch5
Thursday night. He is driving an E-type V12 Jag with a J reg plate, that
registration being 1971-72. He hears something on the radio about Margaret
Thatcher: she became Conservative leader in 1975 which establishes
possibly the earliest year the drama could be representing. He arrives at
the murder scene and there are two police cars outside - a Morris Minor
1000 and a Triumph Herald. By the mid 70's traffic cars were largely such
as Granadas, Range Rovers, Triumph 2000 and the like and area cars were
often Escorts, Cortinas, Austin 1100's (agh!) etc. At least his bag-man's
car was a Capri which would be about right.
The very simple things that we all learned about as children are just
by-passed these days as they spend their time on social media.
D'oh!

[Davey]

On Sat, 6 Nov 2021 08:13:58 +0000

Post by Davey
The documentary showing the journey of the steam engine 'Tornado'
and a train of carriages up the North-East coast of England shows a
traditional fish smoke-house. The subtitles explained that, in the
15th and 16th centuries, heron was a staple food for most people,
as it was common and easily caught. I had no idea that the bird was
that common. Then it showed a traditional herring smoke-house,
which made much more sense.
I can excuse a mistake like that during a live broadcast, but in a
filmed and edited documentary, there really is no excuse for editing
mistakes like that.
Unless, pf course, they don't really care...

I suspect it is not so much that they don't care but more that they
don't know the difference between a heron and a herring. It also
shows up far far too often when they do things like a piece of video
reversed left to right for effect and fail to realise that people
will notice the background, or they use a modern phone in a 50/60's
drama, or (as in Endeavour) they use an American desk phone which
would never have been available at that time.
A good example of failure to pay attention was in the new Dalgliesh
on Ch5 Thursday night. He is driving an E-type V12 Jag with a J reg
plate, that registration being 1971-72. He hears something on the
radio about Margaret Thatcher: she became Conservative leader in 1975
which establishes possibly the earliest year the drama could be
representing. He arrives at the murder scene and there are two police
cars outside - a Morris Minor 1000 and a Triumph Herald. By the mid
70's traffic cars were largely such as Granadas, Range Rovers,
Triumph 2000 and the like and area cars were often Escorts, Cortinas,
Austin 1100's (agh!) etc. At least his bag-man's car was a Capri
which would be about right.
The very simple things that we all learned about as children are just
by-passed these days as they spend their time on social media.
D'oh!

In the 'old days', they had Continuity Girls, whose job it was to
provide seamless transitions from one scene to the next (shirts
buttoned to different heights, scarves thrown over opposite
shoulders, etc) and I thought to also follow details like these. But
some, such as the car details you mentioned, might be a bit too
anoracky for somebody without that interest. But it should have been
researched by somebody, surely?
My personal favourite at the moment is the emergency plumber who throws
a spanner to shut off a water valve, the problem being that he in fact
opens it fully. A detail, yes, but it grates to those who know it's
wrong.

[MB]

There has to be a question of availability too. The Classic Cars
newsgroup occasionally carries a warning that someone loaned their
treasured classic to a programme maker or film set and discovered that
when they got it back it has been "just a prop" as far as the recipients
were concerned, and it was returned with small scratches or dents, or
something mechanical wrong like ruined synchromesh in the gearbox. The
production company probably pays for the repairs, but a repaired car is
not the same as an original car.

A friend supplied radio equipment for use in a couple of TV productions.
I warned him to ensure there was a suitably high penalty payment in the
event of damage or loss because film and TV people have no respect for
other people's property.

[charles]

Post by MB

There has to be a question of availability too. The Classic Cars
newsgroup occasionally carries a warning that someone loaned their
treasured classic to a programme maker or film set and discovered that
when they got it back it has been "just a prop" as far as the recipients
were concerned, and it was returned with small scratches or dents, or
something mechanical wrong like ruined synchromesh in the gearbox. The
production company probably pays for the repairs, but a repaired car is
not the same as an original car.

A friend supplied radio equipment for use in a couple of TV productions.
I warned him to ensure there was a suitably high penalty payment in the
event of damage or loss because film and TV people have no respect for
other people's property.

like "This gun is unloaded"

[NY]

Post by Davey
In the 'old days', they had Continuity Girls, whose job it was to
provide seamless transitions from one scene to the next (shirts
buttoned to different heights, scarves thrown over opposite
shoulders, etc) and I thought to also follow details like these. But
some, such as the car details you mentioned, might be a bit too
anoracky for somebody without that interest. But it should have been
researched by somebody, surely?

When cars and other period details have to be ordered explicitly (you don't
use what happens to be "lying around", parked by the side of the road, you
expect the props master to have done his research.

At least the none of the cars mentioned were anachronistic: ie the action
takes place before certain cars were first released. If they are too old for
the time period (ie police would already have replaced older cars with newer
ones) at least it's plausible to say that some forces may be hanging onto
older vehicles until they are life-expired.

[Davey]

On Sat, 6 Nov 2021 08:57:52 +0000

suspect it is not so much that they don't care but more that they
don't know the difference between a heron and a herring.

Maybe it was a "when the boat comes in" accent?

I have rarely seen accents on subtitles, but you never know!

[Andy Burns]

Post by Davey

suspect it is not so much that they don't care but more that they
don't know the difference between a heron and a herring.

Maybe it was a "when the boat comes in" accent?

I have rarely seen accents on subtitles, but you never know!

I meant the spoken accent was difficult for the subtitle transcriber to
hear/understand!

[Davey]

On Sat, 6 Nov 2021 09:29:31 +0000

Post by Andy Burns

Post by Davey

suspect it is not so much that they don't care but more that they
don't know the difference between a heron and a herring.

Maybe it was a "when the boat comes in" accent?

I have rarely seen accents on subtitles, but you never know!

I meant the spoken accent was difficult for the subtitle transcriber
to hear/understand!

Maybe, and quite possibly, but the context pretty much defines the
correct word. They don't have many herons caught in fishing nets off
the North Sea Coast!

[John Armstrong]

Post by Davey
The documentary showing the journey of the steam engine 'Tornado' and a
train of carriages up the North-East coast of England shows a
traditional fish smoke-house. The subtitles explained that, in the 15th
and 16th centuries, heron was a staple food for most people, as it was
common and easily caught. I had no idea that the bird was that common.
Then it showed a traditional herring smoke-house, which made much more
sense.
I can excuse a mistake like that during a live broadcast, but in a
filmed and edited documentary, there really is no excuse for editing
mistakes like that.
Unless, pf course, they don't really care...

They probably don't care. The BBC certainly doesn't. On 23rd
October, I sent this complaint to them about "Guilt", their flagship
Scottish drama broadcast on BBC Scotland on 19th October. (Repeated on
BBC2 later in the week.)


"Subtitles throughout were a disgrace, and on occasion bore little
resemblance to what was being said. Most egregious example was when
(Edinburgh's) Corstorphine Hill was rendered as "Corstockon" Hill. Is
this really the best you can do? BBC SCOTLAND!! Did no-one have the
intelligence to pick that error up?"

They replied: "The subtitling of BBC programmes is provided by Red Bee
Media. We raised your concerns about the quality of the subtitling for
this programme directly with them.

Red Bee Media's Subtitling Management team has now conducted a full
review of the subtitles created for Guilt, and please accept the
apologies of the subtitling service that the original subtitles for
this programme weren't up to their usual high standards.

They would like to add that your complaint has been taken very
seriously, and that your feedback and use of the subtitling service is
very much appreciated. Again, they are sorry that you weren't able to
enjoy the service as expected on this occasion."

Two more episodes followed, the last being broadcast on Tuesday 2nd
November. In spite of the time they had available, and the "full
review" they allegedly carried out, there was no improvement to the
subtitles.

As you say, live broadcast is one thing, but in a recorded programme,
there is no excuse.

[Robin]

Post by John Armstrong

Post by Davey
The documentary showing the journey of the steam engine 'Tornado' and a
train of carriages up the North-East coast of England shows a
traditional fish smoke-house. The subtitles explained that, in the 15th
and 16th centuries, heron was a staple food for most people, as it was
common and easily caught. I had no idea that the bird was that common.
Then it showed a traditional herring smoke-house, which made much more
sense.
I can excuse a mistake like that during a live broadcast, but in a
filmed and edited documentary, there really is no excuse for editing
mistakes like that.
Unless, pf course, they don't really care...

They probably don't care. The BBC certainly doesn't. On 23rd
October, I sent this complaint to them about "Guilt", their flagship
Scottish drama broadcast on BBC Scotland on 19th October. (Repeated on
BBC2 later in the week.)
"Subtitles throughout were a disgrace, and on occasion bore little
resemblance to what was being said. Most egregious example was when
(Edinburgh's) Corstorphine Hill was rendered as "Corstockon" Hill. Is
this really the best you can do? BBC SCOTLAND!! Did no-one have the
intelligence to pick that error up?"
They replied: "The subtitling of BBC programmes is provided by Red Bee
Media. We raised your concerns about the quality of the subtitling for
this programme directly with them.
Red Bee Media's Subtitling Management team has now conducted a full
review of the subtitles created for Guilt, and please accept the
apologies of the subtitling service that the original subtitles for
this programme weren't up to their usual high standards.
They would like to add that your complaint has been taken very
seriously, and that your feedback and use of the subtitling service is
very much appreciated. Again, they are sorry that you weren't able to
enjoy the service as expected on this occasion."
Two more episodes followed, the last being broadcast on Tuesday 2nd
November. In spite of the time they had available, and the "full
review" they allegedly carried out, there was no improvement to the
subtitles.
As you say, live broadcast is one thing, but in a recorded programme,
there is no excuse.

What would be the cost of reviewing and revising the subtitles of a
programme in order to eliminate all such errors?

[MB]

Post by Robin
What would be the cost of reviewing and revising the subtitles of a
programme in order to eliminate all such errors?

And just think how many thousands of letters / EMails / phone calls they
get for any popular programme, mostly either very trial or wrong.

[Robin]

Post by MB

Post by Robin
What would be the cost of reviewing and revising the subtitles of a
programme in order to eliminate all such errors?

And just think how many thousands of letters / EMails / phone calls they
get for any popular programme, mostly either very trial or wrong.

I have no idea how many (and the few people I know who rely on subtitles
don't fuss about the lapses). Do you have a source?

[Roderick Stewart]

On Sat, 06 Nov 2021 09:36:52 +0000, John Armstrong

Post by John Armstrong
They probably don't care. The BBC certainly doesn't. On 23rd
October, I sent this complaint to them about "Guilt", their flagship
Scottish drama broadcast on BBC Scotland on 19th October. (Repeated on
BBC2 later in the week.)
"Subtitles throughout were a disgrace, and on occasion bore little
resemblance to what was being said. Most egregious example was when
(Edinburgh's) Corstorphine Hill was rendered as "Corstockon" Hill. Is
this really the best you can do? BBC SCOTLAND!! Did no-one have the
intelligence to pick that error up?"

I'll take your word for it, because that was one recent drama for
which I didn't need to use the subtitles at all. Nearly everyone spoke
with Scottish accents of course, but everyone spoke clearly. It's the
English and American dramas where actors speak too fast and mangle
their words that are sometimes difficult to follow.

Rod.

[MB]

Post by Roderick Stewart
I'll take your word for it, because that was one recent drama for
which I didn't need to use the subtitles at all. Nearly everyone spoke
with Scottish accents of course, but everyone spoke clearly.

Which "Scottish accent"?

Rather like referring to an "English accent".

On a trip to the Northern Isles, one of our group thought he could mimic
a "Scottish accent" and kept doing a classic "Scottish accent". It took
some time to convince him that they do not speak like that on Orkney or
Shetland.

[charles]

Post by MB

Post by Roderick Stewart
I'll take your word for it, because that was one recent drama for
which I didn't need to use the subtitles at all. Nearly everyone spoke
with Scottish accents of course, but everyone spoke clearly.

Which "Scottish accent"?

Rod wrote "Scottish accents"

So I did. There was a variety of them.
I's a long time since I've lived in Scotland, but I can still identify
most of the main ones, or at least say which part of the country
they're from. It's tricky with actors in dramas of course, because
some of them may be trying to put on different accents from their
natural ones, or may have spent time living in England and become
accustomed to using English accents in order to get the parts.
Rod.

I was involved, a great many years ago, in an amateur theatrical production
where the "Irish maid's" accent would often vary from Belfast to County
Cork in the space of a paragraph.

[MB]

I have found that sighted people when proof reading their own work, are
often seeing what they expect to see, not what is actually there.

Someone with ADHD is probably ideal for a continuity checking role.

[MB]

Post by Davey
Unless, pf course, they don't really care...

What is the excuse for that typo? Not good to have typos when
criticising others for similar.

[williamwright]

I have found that sighted people when proof reading their own work, are
often seeing what they expect to see, not what is actually there.
Brian

That's the problem!

Bill

[NY]

Post by williamwright

I have found that sighted people when proof reading their own work, are
often seeing what they expect to see, not what is actually there.
Brian

That's the problem!

It doesn't even have to be your own words that you are proof reading. Many
of us read what we expect to be there, as in the famous

Loading Image...

For Brian's benefit, it's an equilateral triangle, point at the top,
containing the words

PARIS [new line]
IN THE [new line]
THE SPRING

Many people don't notice the second "THE".


When I'm proofreading something I've written, for typos as opposed to
logical sense, I tend to read it out loud to myself, to force me to read
slower and to hear the words as well as see them.

[Ian Jackson]

Post by NY

Post by williamwright

I have found that sighted people when proof reading their own work, are
often seeing what they expect to see, not what is actually there.
Brian

That's the problem!

It doesn't even have to be your own words that you are proof reading.
Many of us read what we expect to be there, as in the famous
https://i.pinimg.com/600x315/bd/60/ef/bd60ef22bdeb4f8ac4613f5daeff67d3.jpg
For Brian's benefit, it's an equilateral triangle, point at the top,
containing the words
PARIS [new line]
IN THE [new line]
THE SPRING
Many people don't notice the second "THE".
When I'm proofreading something I've written, for typos as opposed to
logical sense, I tend to read it out loud to myself, to force me to
read slower and to hear the words as well as see them.

Mistakes are much more obvious if you use a text-to-speech program so
you can listen to the words while you read them.

[Davey]

On Fri, 5 Nov 2021 23:17:06 +0000

Post by Davey
The documentary showing the journey of the steam engine 'Tornado' and
a train of carriages up the North-East coast of England shows a
traditional fish smoke-house. The subtitles explained that, in the
15th and 16th centuries, heron was a staple food for most people, as
it was common and easily caught. I had no idea that the bird was that
common. Then it showed a traditional herring smoke-house, which made
much more sense.
I can excuse a mistake like that during a live broadcast, but in a
filmed and edited documentary, there really is no excuse for editing
mistakes like that.
Unless, pf course, they don't really care...

"I woke up this morning", and turned on the BBC News, to read on the
subtitles that a couple of cyclists were taking a Rugby Ball somewhere
in memory of Doddie Weir, which trip involved them cycling 555 miles in
5 hours. I know that bikes are faster than they used to be in my day,
but 111 mph would surely attract the attention of Sgt. Speedcatcher?

[Brian Gaff]

Another thing seems to be beginning to happen on some programmes. The sub
titles are being read by a synthetic voice on the AD channel, and of course
it reproduces all the mistakes and most of the time is dead pan and
mispronounces things.
Dit you know that Peter Noone was really Peter No One? Snigger.
Brian
--
--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
***@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!

Post by Davey
On Fri, 5 Nov 2021 23:17:06 +0000

Post by Davey
The documentary showing the journey of the steam engine 'Tornado' and
a train of carriages up the North-East coast of England shows a
traditional fish smoke-house. The subtitles explained that, in the
15th and 16th centuries, heron was a staple food for most people, as
it was common and easily caught. I had no idea that the bird was that
common. Then it showed a traditional herring smoke-house, which made
much more sense.
I can excuse a mistake like that during a live broadcast, but in a
filmed and edited documentary, there really is no excuse for editing
mistakes like that.
Unless, pf course, they don't really care...

"I woke up this morning", and turned on the BBC News, to read on the
subtitles that a couple of cyclists were taking a Rugby Ball somewhere
in memory of Doddie Weir, which trip involved them cycling 555 miles in
5 hours. I know that bikes are faster than they used to be in my day,
but 111 mph would surely attract the attention of Sgt. Speedcatcher?
--
Davey.

[NY]

Did you know that Peter Noone was really Peter No One? Snigger.

I remember reading an article somewhere which said that "Noone" was a
made-up name, probably derived from "no-one", in the same way that Nosmo
King got his name from a pair of double doors with "No Smoking" written
on them as "NO SMO" and "KING".

And I believed it! Until I checked Peter Noone's Wikipedia entry just
now and saw that he really was born Peter Blair Denis Bernard Noone.

I've not had any cause to listen to AD, but I'll keep my ears open and
see if I can catch any programmes that use speech synthesis for the AD
track.

[Andy Burns]

the subtitles explained that, in the 15th and 16th centuries, heron
was a staple food for most people, as it was common and easily
caught. I had no idea that the bird was that common.

Oh mum! Why do I always get the beak?

[Davey]

On Fri, 5 Nov 2021 23:17:06 +0000

Post by Davey
The documentary showing the journey of the steam engine 'Tornado' and
a train of carriages up the North-East coast of England shows a
traditional fish smoke-house. The subtitles explained that, in the
15th and 16th centuries, heron was a staple food for most people, as
it was common and easily caught. I had no idea that the bird was that
common. Then it showed a traditional herring smoke-house, which made
much more sense.
I can excuse a mistake like that during a live broadcast, but in a
filmed and edited documentary, there really is no excuse for editing
mistakes like that.
Unless, pf course, they don't really care...

Today's offering!
The subtitle said: "Mario's sissy", which actually meant: "Manchester
City". I wonder what Gary would have made of that?

[Brian Gaff]

Yes, I wonder why nobody actually thought of trying to make the subtitles
audible, it might help following stuff like documentaries with foreign
speakers and not a hint of AD.

As for doing subtitling
--
--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
***@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!

Post by Davey
On Fri, 5 Nov 2021 23:17:06 +0000

Post by Davey
The documentary showing the journey of the steam engine 'Tornado' and
a train of carriages up the North-East coast of England shows a
traditional fish smoke-house. The subtitles explained that, in the
15th and 16th centuries, heron was a staple food for most people, as
it was common and easily caught. I had no idea that the bird was that
common. Then it showed a traditional herring smoke-house, which made
much more sense.
I can excuse a mistake like that during a live broadcast, but in a
filmed and edited documentary, there really is no excuse for editing
mistakes like that.
Unless, pf course, they don't really care...

Today's offering!
The subtitle said: "Mario's sissy", which actually meant: "Manchester
City". I wonder what Gary would have made of that?
--
Davey.

[Jeff Gaines]

And as a special treat Laura Trevelyan will read them...

Post by Brian Gaff
Yes, I wonder why nobody actually thought of trying to make the subtitles
audible, it might help following stuff like documentaries with foreign
speakers and not a hint of AD.
As for doing subtitling

[Brian Gaff]

Unfortunately, many that are done are done with an electronic voice with as
much personality as a turnip.
Brian
--
--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
***@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!

Post by Jeff Gaines
And as a special treat Laura Trevelyan will read them...

Post by Brian Gaff
Yes, I wonder why nobody actually thought of trying to make the subtitles
audible, it might help following stuff like documentaries with foreign
speakers and not a hint of AD.
As for doing subtitling

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
George Washington was a British subject until well after his 40th birthday.
(Margaret Thatcher, speech at the White House 17 December 1979)

[MB]

Post by Brian Gaff
Unfortunately, many that are done are done with an electronic voice with as
much personality as a turnip.
Brian

Sounds a bit like Lineker.

[MB]

Post by Brian Gaff
Yes, I wonder why nobody actually thought of trying to make the subtitles
audible, it might help following stuff like documentaries with foreign
speakers and not a hint of AD.

The original subtitles were teletext and I think used very little
bandwidth, wouldn't an audio system use more?

[Davey]

On Fri, 5 Nov 2021 23:17:06 +0000

Post by Davey
The documentary showing the journey of the steam engine 'Tornado' and
a train of carriages up the North-East coast of England shows a
traditional fish smoke-house. The subtitles explained that, in the
15th and 16th centuries, heron was a staple food for most people, as
it was common and easily caught. I had no idea that the bird was that
common. Then it showed a traditional herring smoke-house, which made
much more sense.
I can excuse a mistake like that during a live broadcast, but in a
filmed and edited documentary, there really is no excuse for editing
mistakes like that.
Unless, pf course, they don't really care...

A nice one this morning. BBC's Breakfast, reporting on the fact that no
new vehicles produced from now on will have a CD player, said that there
had been a huge erection by the viewers. Quickly corrected to
'reaction'.

In the US, that would have resulted in a fine, as in the Janet
Jackson / Justin Timberlake 'Wardrobe Malfunction' at a Super Bowl
event some years ago.

[Spike]

Post by Davey
On Fri, 5 Nov 2021 23:17:06 +0000

Post by Davey
The documentary showing the journey of the steam engine 'Tornado' and
a train of carriages up the North-East coast of England shows a
traditional fish smoke-house. The subtitles explained that, in the
15th and 16th centuries, heron was a staple food for most people, as
it was common and easily caught. I had no idea that the bird was that
common. Then it showed a traditional herring smoke-house, which made
much more sense.
I can excuse a mistake like that during a live broadcast, but in a
filmed and edited documentary, there really is no excuse for editing
mistakes like that.
Unless, pf course, they don't really care...

A nice one this morning. BBC's Breakfast, reporting on the fact that no
new vehicles produced from now on will have a CD player, said that there
had been a huge erection by the viewers. Quickly corrected to
'reaction'.

Even famous people do that, such as Starmer’s recent reference to Israeli
hostages as ‘sausages’.

Post by Davey
In the US, that would have resulted in a fine, as in the Janet
Jackson / Justin Timberlake 'Wardrobe Malfunction' at a Super Bowl
event some years ago.

[Java Jive]

Post by Davey
A nice one this morning. BBC's Breakfast, reporting on the fact that no
new vehicles produced from now on will have a CD player, said that there
had been a huge erection by the viewers. Quickly corrected to
'reaction'.
In the US, that would have resulted in a fine, as in the Janet
Jackson / Justin Timberlake 'Wardrobe Malfunction' at a Super Bowl
event some years ago.

I don't remember that, but, if it was Janet, I imagine that might have
resulted in some huge erections as well.

[Peter Johnson]

Post by Java Jive

Post by Davey
A nice one this morning. BBC's Breakfast, reporting on the fact that no
new vehicles produced from now on will have a CD player, said that there
had been a huge erection by the viewers. Quickly corrected to
'reaction'.
In the US, that would have resulted in a fine, as in the Janet
Jackson / Justin Timberlake 'Wardrobe Malfunction' at a Super Bowl
event some years ago.

I don't remember that, but, if it was Janet, I imagine that might have
resulted in some huge erections as well.

I doubt it. Most viewers will have missed it because it was only on
screen for a few seconds. (Which I only know because there was an
interview with her in the Observer last week.)

[Davey]

On Fri, 27 Sep 2024 11:00:23 +0100

Post by Peter Johnson

Post by Java Jive

Post by Davey
A nice one this morning. BBC's Breakfast, reporting on the fact
that no new vehicles produced from now on will have a CD player,
said that there had been a huge erection by the viewers. Quickly
corrected to 'reaction'.
In the US, that would have resulted in a fine, as in the Janet
Jackson / Justin Timberlake 'Wardrobe Malfunction' at a Super Bowl
event some years ago.

I don't remember that, but, if it was Janet, I imagine that might
have resulted in some huge erections as well.

I doubt it. Most viewers will have missed it because it was only on
screen for a few seconds. (Which I only know because there was an
interview with her in the Observer last week.)

In fact, if I remember correctly,she had pasties over her nipples, so it
was not really provocative, just surprising.
But it certainly got some publicity.

[Jeff Gaines]

Post by Davey

Post by Peter Johnson
I doubt it. Most viewers will have missed it because it was only on
screen for a few seconds. (Which I only know because there was an
interview with her in the Observer last week.)

In fact, if I remember correctly,she had pasties over her nipples, so it
was not really provocative, just surprising.
But it certainly got some publicity.

I remember the pasties as well so it wasn't a wardrobe malfunction, it was
part of the act.

[Davey]

On 27 Sep 2024 12:39:02 GMT

Post by Jeff Gaines

Post by Davey

Post by Peter Johnson
I doubt it. Most viewers will have missed it because it was only on
screen for a few seconds. (Which I only know because there was an
interview with her in the Observer last week.)

In fact, if I remember correctly,she had pasties over her nipples,
so it was not really provocative, just surprising.
But it certainly got some publicity.

I remember the pasties as well so it wasn't a wardrobe malfunction,
it was part of the act.

Oh true, but that is how it was explained. It certainly got people
talking about Janet and Justin.

I saw it live on TV, hence my memory of the pasties. We didn't have HD
then.......
The most amazing part of the whole thing was the reaction to it.

[JMB99]

Post by Davey
In fact, if I remember correctly,she had pasties over her nipples, so it
was not really provocative, just surprising.
But it certainly got some publicity.

Didn't she have some sort of metal jewellery on her nipples.

The Americans tend to be very conservative about what is on mainstream
TV. They would never have the stuff on porn channels like Channel 4 and
Channel 5.

[Davey]

On Fri, 27 Sep 2024 20:10:47 +0100

Post by JMB99

Post by Davey
In fact, if I remember correctly,she had pasties over her nipples,
so it was not really provocative, just surprising.
But it certainly got some publicity.

Didn't she have some sort of metal jewellery on her nipples.
The Americans tend to be very conservative about what is on
mainstream TV. They would never have the stuff on porn channels like
Channel 4 and Channel 5.

There is a film called Vanishing Point. I saw it first on a US cable TV
channel, so not censured. There is a scene where a naked blond girl is
riding around a compound on a motor bike.
I later saw the film on UK TV, and it had that scene included. But when
it was later shown on mainstream US TV, that whole scene had been cut
out, and it was about 10 minutes long. In fact, it was always missing
whenever I caught the film being shown in the US. One of the the film's
stars was Cleavon Little, who later played the Sheriff in Blazing
Saddles.

[Woody]

Post by Davey
On Fri, 27 Sep 2024 20:10:47 +0100

Post by JMB99

Post by Davey
In fact, if I remember correctly,she had pasties over her nipples,
so it was not really provocative, just surprising.
But it certainly got some publicity.

Didn't she have some sort of metal jewellery on her nipples.
The Americans tend to be very conservative about what is on
mainstream TV. They would never have the stuff on porn channels like
Channel 4 and Channel 5.

There is a film called Vanishing Point. I saw it first on a US cable TV
channel, so not censured. There is a scene where a naked blond girl is
riding around a compound on a motor bike.
I later saw the film on UK TV, and it had that scene included. But when
it was later shown on mainstream US TV, that whole scene had been cut
out, and it was about 10 minutes long. In fact, it was always missing
whenever I caught the film being shown in the US. One of the the film's
stars was Cleavon Little, who later played the Sheriff in Blazing
Saddles.

I remember that film. Starred Barry Newman(?) and I also remember the
girl on the bike. I also seem to remember Newman being a driver of some
sort, was it in a light blue Mustang?

[Davey]

On Fri, 27 Sep 2024 22:11:38 +0100

Post by Woody

Post by Davey
On Fri, 27 Sep 2024 20:10:47 +0100

Post by JMB99

Post by Davey
In fact, if I remember correctly,she had pasties over her nipples,
so it was not really provocative, just surprising.
But it certainly got some publicity.

Didn't she have some sort of metal jewellery on her nipples.
The Americans tend to be very conservative about what is on
mainstream TV. They would never have the stuff on porn channels
like Channel 4 and Channel 5.

There is a film called Vanishing Point. I saw it first on a US
cable TV channel, so not censured. There is a scene where a naked
blond girl is riding around a compound on a motor bike.
I later saw the film on UK TV, and it had that scene included. But
when it was later shown on mainstream US TV, that whole scene had
been cut out, and it was about 10 minutes long. In fact, it was
always missing whenever I caught the film being shown in the US.
One of the the film's stars was Cleavon Little, who later played
the Sheriff in Blazing Saddles.

I remember that film. Starred Barry Newman(?) and I also remember the
girl on the bike. I also seem to remember Newman being a driver of
some sort, was it in a light blue Mustang?

No, it was a white, or near-white, Dodge Challenger, I believe. He was
delivering it back across the country, and was taking pills to keep him
awake. I actually enjoyed the film, especially Cleavon Little as the
blind radio broadcaster, Super Soul.

[JMB99]

Post by Davey
I later saw the film on UK TV, and it had that scene included. But when
it was later shown on mainstream US TV, that whole scene had been cut
out, and it was about 10 minutes long.

The long running US series 'Naked and Afraid' even pixellates rear views
showing bums. Channel 4 or Channel 5 had a British version a few years
ago, the participants were naked and shown 'in all their glory' with no
pixellation.

The US series is funny because they are given a sort of satchel which
seems to carry either a radio microphone transmitter or sound recorder.
The first thing that they all seem to do is use the satchel to cover
their 'bits'.

[Davey]

On Sat, 28 Sep 2024 07:46:15 +0100

Post by JMB99

Post by Davey
I later saw the film on UK TV, and it had that scene included. But
when it was later shown on mainstream US TV, that whole scene had
been cut out, and it was about 10 minutes long.

The long running US series 'Naked and Afraid' even pixellates rear
views showing bums. Channel 4 or Channel 5 had a British version a
few years ago, the participants were naked and shown 'in all their
glory' with no pixellation.
The US series is funny because they are given a sort of satchel which
seems to carry either a radio microphone transmitter or sound
recorder. The first thing that they all seem to do is use the satchel
to cover their 'bits'.

Personally, I would want to be paid a huge amount of money to even
think about going on that show, but then, I've never been tempted to
go to a nudist beach, either.
There again, they say everyone has his price!

[JMB99]

Post by Davey
Personally, I would want to be paid a huge amount of money to even
think about going on that show, but then, I've never been tempted to
go to a nudist beach, either.
There again, they say everyone has his price!

I googled the programme because I was interested in some of the
technicalities. There were suggestions that payments are made to the
participitants.

The old story about the Oxford academic hiding his face at Parson's
Pleasure comes to mind.

[Davey]

On Sat, 28 Sep 2024 09:34:24 +0100

Post by JMB99
There were suggestions that payments are made to the
participitants.

Shock, horror, I would never have believed it!

There was a piece in a newspaper soon after the thing that takes place
in Australia, 'Get me out of here!' started. The writer was on a flight
back from Oz, and in first class was one of the producers. A female
participant, who had been though hell on the programme, was back in
steerage, so the writer remonstrated with the producer to admonish her
for taking the luxury cabin while relegating the participant, who had
actually been working her butt off in the show, to the basic cabin. I
don't remember the outcome, though, but I applaud her for doing that.
I see a certain relationship to Starmer and his £3,000 glasses.

[Java Jive]

Post by JMB99

Post by Davey
Personally, I would want to be paid a huge amount of money to even
think about going on that show, but then, I've never been tempted to
go to a nudist beach, either.
There again, they say everyone has his price!

I googled the programme because I was interested in some of the
technicalities.  There were suggestions that payments are made to the
participitants.
The old story about the Oxford academic hiding his face at Parson's
Pleasure comes to mind.

Being more of a Cambridge man, I had to look that up:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parson%27s_Pleasure

"Parson's Pleasure is now only a scene for tales from the folklore of
the university. One anecdote has it that a number of dons were
sunbathing naked at Parson's Pleasure when a female student floated by
in a punt. All but one of the startled dons covered their
genitals—Maurice Bowra placed a flannel over his head instead. When
asked why he had done so, he replied, "I don’t know about you,
gentlemen, but in Oxford, I, at least, am known by my face."[16]"

[Java Jive]

Post by Davey
On Fri, 27 Sep 2024 11:00:23 +0100

Post by Peter Johnson

Post by Java Jive

Post by Davey
A nice one this morning. BBC's Breakfast, reporting on the fact
that no new vehicles produced from now on will have a CD player,
said that there had been a huge erection by the viewers. Quickly
corrected to 'reaction'.
In the US, that would have resulted in a fine, as in the Janet
Jackson / Justin Timberlake 'Wardrobe Malfunction' at a Super Bowl
event some years ago.

I don't remember that, but, if it was Janet, I imagine that might
have resulted in some huge erections as well.

I doubt it. Most viewers will have missed it because it was only on
screen for a few seconds. (Which I only know because there was an
interview with her in the Observer last week.)

In fact, if I remember correctly,she had pasties over her nipples, so it
was not really provocative, just surprising.
But it certainly got some publicity.

Coincidentally in the Guardian today, about 3/4 down:
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2024/sep/28/elton-john-stormzy-madonna-britney-41-era-defining-music-photos

[Davey]

On Sat, 28 Sep 2024 13:20:02 +0100

Post by Java Jive

Post by Davey
On Fri, 27 Sep 2024 11:00:23 +0100

On Fri, 27 Sep 2024 10:36:33 +0100, Java Jive

Post by Java Jive

Post by Davey
A nice one this morning. BBC's Breakfast, reporting on the fact
that no new vehicles produced from now on will have a CD player,
said that there had been a huge erection by the viewers. Quickly
corrected to 'reaction'.
In the US, that would have resulted in a fine, as in the Janet
Jackson / Justin Timberlake 'Wardrobe Malfunction' at a Super
Bowl event some years ago.

I don't remember that, but, if it was Janet, I imagine that might
have resulted in some huge erections as well.

I doubt it. Most viewers will have missed it because it was only on
screen for a few seconds. (Which I only know because there was an
interview with her in the Observer last week.)

In fact, if I remember correctly,she had pasties over her nipples,
so it was not really provocative, just surprising.
But it certainly got some publicity.

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2024/sep/28/elton-john-stormzy-madonna-britney-41-era-defining-music-photos

I would have said more like 5/6 of the way down, but it does show that
there was really nothing 'rude' about it, except in the eyes of
Americans.

[Davey]

On Fri, 5 Nov 2021 23:17:06 +0000

Post by Davey
The documentary showing the journey of the steam engine 'Tornado' and
a train of carriages up the North-East coast of England shows a
traditional fish smoke-house. The subtitles explained that, in the
15th and 16th centuries, heron was a staple food for most people, as
it was common and easily caught. I had no idea that the bird was that
common. Then it showed a traditional herring smoke-house, which made
much more sense.
I can excuse a mistake like that during a live broadcast, but in a
filmed and edited documentary, there really is no excuse for editing
mistakes like that.
Unless, pf course, they don't really care...

Today's Exhibit.
On the F1 US Grand Prix Sprint Qualifying, a view from Max Verstappen's
car referred to him as "..the driver we are bored with...."
Oh yes, got it in one.

[JMB99]

Post by Davey
Today's Exhibit.
On the F1 US Grand Prix Sprint Qualifying, a view from Max Verstappen's
car referred to him as "..the driver we are bored with...."
Oh yes, got it in one.

I have never heard of him, perhaps you can explain the significance of
that? Is he boring? Or did they mean to say something else>

[alan_m]

Post by JMB99

Post by Davey
Today's Exhibit.
On the F1 US Grand Prix Sprint Qualifying, a view from Max Verstappen's
car referred to him as "..the driver we are bored with...."
Oh yes, got it in one.

I have never heard of him, perhaps you can explain the significance of
that?  Is he boring?  Or did they mean to say something else>

He is a F1 driver and for a couple of years from a time when F1 was very
boring. F1 has more to do with the performance of the car and these
days less to do with the skill of the driver. He had a car that was far
better than any of the competition and once at the front of the field in
many races the outcome of the race was virtually guaranteed from lap 2.
The rest of the race wasn't worth watching. So, yes a true statement
"..the driver we are bored with...."

[Java Jive]

Post by alan_m

Post by JMB99

Post by Davey
Today's Exhibit.
On the F1 US Grand Prix Sprint Qualifying, a view from Max Verstappen's
car referred to him as "..the driver we are bored with...."
Oh yes, got it in one.

I have never heard of him, perhaps you can explain the significance of
that?  Is he boring?  Or did they mean to say something else>

Presumably the commentator actually said "on board with" and the
automatic subtitling transcription software misheard it.

Post by alan_m
He is a F1 driver and for a couple of years from a time when F1 was very
boring.  F1 has more to do with the performance of the car and these
days less to do with the skill of the driver. He had a car that was far
better than any of the competition and once at the front of the field in
many races the outcome of the race was virtually guaranteed from lap 2.
The rest of the race wasn't worth watching.  So, yes a true statement
"..the driver we are bored with...."

I lost interest in F1 a long time ago, disgusted by Beneton breaking the
rules and being allowed to get away with it, but it seems unjust to
blame Verstappen in particular for a problem afflicting the sport in
general.

[Davey]

On Sun, 20 Oct 2024 09:43:50 +0100

Post by Java Jive

Post by JMB99

Post by Davey
Today's Exhibit.
On the F1 US Grand Prix Sprint Qualifying, a view from Max
Verstappen's car referred to him as "..the driver we are bored
with...." Oh yes, got it in one.

I have never heard of him, perhaps you can explain the
significance of that?  Is he boring?  Or did they mean to say
something else>

Presumably the commentator actually said "on board with" and the
automatic subtitling transcription software misheard it.

Almost certainly the case. But it was especially relevant to Verstappen,
of a couple of years ago.

[Davey]

On Fri, 5 Nov 2021 23:17:06 +0000
Davey <***@example.invalid> wrote:
The BBC News this evening commented on the removal of
Trump's Inauguration Ceremony to indoors, which is no small job,
preparation takes weeks.

One woman commented that, however cold it was, she was here to support
her goat, and the weather would not deter her.

I know he has selected a strange picture as his official 'photo, but I
am waiting for the goat horns to appear.

Fraser, from Dad's Army: "We're doomed, I tell ye. we're doomed".

[John Hall]

In message <vmhb3e$16kvd$***@dont-email.me>, Davey <***@example.invalid>
writes

Post by Davey
On Fri, 5 Nov 2021 23:17:06 +0000
The BBC News this evening commented on the removal of
Trump's Inauguration Ceremony to indoors, which is no small job,
preparation takes weeks.
One woman commented that, however cold it was, she was here to support
her goat, and the weather would not deter her.
I know he has selected a strange picture as his official 'photo, but I
am waiting for the goat horns to appear.
Fraser, from Dad's Army: "We're doomed, I tell ye. we're doomed".

:)

I imagine her "goat" was intended as "GOAT" - Greatest Of All Time -
which seems to have become a popular acronym these days. I think one can
forgive the subtitling software for struggling with that.

[Davey]

On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 10:30:38 +0000

Post by John Hall

Post by Davey
On Fri, 5 Nov 2021 23:17:06 +0000
The BBC News this evening commented on the removal of
Trump's Inauguration Ceremony to indoors, which is no small job,
preparation takes weeks.
One woman commented that, however cold it was, she was here to
support her goat, and the weather would not deter her.
I know he has selected a strange picture as his official 'photo, but
I am waiting for the goat horns to appear.
Fraser, from Dad's Army: "We're doomed, I tell ye. we're doomed".

:)
I imagine her "goat" was intended as "GOAT" - Greatest Of All Time -
which seems to have become a popular acronym these days. I think one
can forgive the subtitling software for struggling with that.

I took it as 'Vote'. But who knows? It was unusual in that there was
no correction following, which is the normal procedure. Maybe the human
was as confused as the software.
I can't be a...d to check it on iPlayer, I just enjoyed the moment.

[Jeff Gaines]

Post by John Hall
writes

Post by Davey
On Fri, 5 Nov 2021 23:17:06 +0000
The BBC News this evening commented on the removal of
Trump's Inauguration Ceremony to indoors, which is no small job,
preparation takes weeks.
One woman commented that, however cold it was, she was here to support
her goat, and the weather would not deter her.
I know he has selected a strange picture as his official 'photo, but I
am waiting for the goat horns to appear.
Fraser, from Dad's Army: "We're doomed, I tell ye. we're doomed".

:)
I imagine her "goat" was intended as "GOAT" - Greatest Of All Time - which
seems to have become a popular acronym these days. I think one can forgive
the subtitling software for struggling with that.

Perhaps "goal"?

[JMB99]

Post by Jeff Gaines
Perhaps "goal"?

That seems most likely.

I suggest those mocking the subtitlers should try watching a programme
and typing out what is being said on their own computer for half an hour
or so and see how many mistakes they make.

[Jeff Gaines]

Post by JMB99

Post by Jeff Gaines
Perhaps "goal"?

That seems most likely.
I suggest those mocking the subtitlers should try watching a programme and
typing out what is being said on their own computer for half an hour or so
and see how many mistakes they make.

Perhaps done by some sort of speech recognition nowadays?

[NY]

Post by Jeff Gaines

Post by JMB99
I suggest those mocking the subtitlers should try watching a programme
and typing out what is being said on their own computer for half an
hour or so and see how many mistakes they make.

I read somewhere that for live performances, subtitlers *used* to use a
Palantype keyboard, as used by courtroom stenographers. Until a few
years ago...

Post by Jeff Gaines
Perhaps done by some sort of speech recognition nowadays?

... they changed to using speech recognition. But they don't recognise
the actual voices of the reporter/interviewees etc who are speaking on
camera. Instead the subtitler re-speaks the words as he/she hears them,
and it is their voice which is turned into text by speech recognition. I
imagine it's so the software can be tuned to one voice, and so the
quality of the sound is good (close mic, no background sound).

[Davey]

On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 00:10:21 +0000

Post by NY

Post by Jeff Gaines

Post by JMB99
I suggest those mocking the subtitlers should try watching a
programme and typing out what is being said on their own computer
for half an hour or so and see how many mistakes they make.

I read somewhere that for live performances, subtitlers *used* to use
a Palantype keyboard, as used by courtroom stenographers. Until a few
years ago...

Post by Jeff Gaines
Perhaps done by some sort of speech recognition nowadays?

... they changed to using speech recognition. But they don't
recognise the actual voices of the reporter/interviewees etc who are
speaking on camera. Instead the subtitler re-speaks the words as
he/she hears them, and it is their voice which is turned into text by
speech recognition. I imagine it's so the software can be tuned to
one voice, and so the quality of the sound is good (close mic, no
background sound).

Interesting. Do you know if the corrections are done by the speaker, or
by somebody else?
Can anybody here confirm that the method described is the way it is
done? And how about for programmes to be broadcast later, are they done
the same way? There is no excuse for errors on, say, a late, edited,
broadcast of a Formula 1 Race on Ch.4, but they are quite common.

[Davey]

On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 17:25:25 +0000

Post by JMB99

Post by Jeff Gaines
Perhaps "goal"?

That seems most likely.
I suggest those mocking the subtitlers should try watching a
programme and typing out what is being said on their own computer for
half an hour or so and see how many mistakes they make.

I am not mocking the subtitlers, I am merely enjoying some of the
accidental humour that subtitles produce. God knows, we need some fun in
this world, our current government seems intent on killing any fun.
I do believe that most of the subtitles are computer-produced, with a
human providing rapid corrections.

[JMB99]

Post by Davey
I am not mocking the subtitlers, I am merely enjoying some of the
accidental humour that subtitles produce. God knows, we need some fun in
this world, our current government seems intent on killing any fun.
I do believe that most of the subtitles are computer-produced, with a
human providing rapid corrections.

It is just that tabloids (not noted for their own accuracy) quite often
fill column inches with reports of some trivial error made in the subtitles.

I suspect the deaf do not worry too much about minor errors.

[Davey]

On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 08:05:30 +0000

Post by JMB99

Post by Davey
I am not mocking the subtitlers, I am merely enjoying some of the
accidental humour that subtitles produce. God knows, we need some
fun in this world, our current government seems intent on killing
any fun. I do believe that most of the subtitles are
computer-produced, with a human providing rapid corrections.

It is just that tabloids (not noted for their own accuracy) quite
often fill column inches with reports of some trivial error made in
the subtitles.
I suspect the deaf do not worry too much about minor errors.

I don't read the tabloids, so I don't care what they do.
Unfortunately, those 'minor errors' can be quite significant, a
frequent mistake is to leave out a 'not' when reporting an event or
policy.

[John Hall]

Post by John Hall

Post by Davey
On Fri, 5 Nov 2021 23:17:06 +0000
The BBC News this evening commented on the removal of
Trump's Inauguration Ceremony to indoors, which is no small job,
preparation takes weeks.
One woman commented that, however cold it was, she was here to support
her goat, and the weather would not deter her.
I know he has selected a strange picture as his official 'photo, but I
am waiting for the goat horns to appear.
Fraser, from Dad's Army: "We're doomed, I tell ye. we're doomed".

:)
I imagine her "goat" was intended as "GOAT" - Greatest Of All Time -
which seems to have become a popular acronym these days. I think one
can forgive the subtitling software for struggling with that.

In support of my interpretation, searching on "Trump GOAT" has revealed
that there are t-shirts proclaiming Trump to be this. You can even buy
them from amazon.co.uk ! I'd have provided a link, but it's so long that
my news posting software mangles it.