Spanish crew shot an alternative Dracula after Bela Lugosi had gone to bed
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
Randy Skretvodt's "Laurel & Hardy: The Magic Behind The Movies" quotes Stan Laurel: ...after shooting the entire picture in English, editing it and previewing it, they would bring in "French, German, Italian and Spanish interpreters. And they translated our dialogue into each language...we'd set up the camera, and we'd do the French version of the first scene...and each scene we did four times before we moved the camera for the different change."
Overdub is super cheap compared to multiple shoots.
I'd much rather watch a foreign production with top quality actors subbed in english than an assembly line english version with sub par acting.
(Although I can see it being alright for stuff you already don't expect to be quality, like soaps)
Edit, father who has seen Paw Patrol in lots of different regional versions on different streaming service.
Because you have to pay N casts, shoot N × as much film, do N times as much editing, and use the sets of N times as long. The only thing this saves on is constructing the sets.
> hell you could record camera positions and the camera could move exactly the same in different versions.
Which probably is of less value that you think unless you do the same thing with the cast, who usually aren't as mechanically programmable.
The deep fake could adjust the actors to make the body match the audio where appropriate.
Maybe a couple years off from being very feasible? Maybe use a sensor suit to add gestures.
There’s a lot of advances coming up that seem like they could make for some interesting art.
Personally I've tried to watch programs dubbed into English before and found it very distracting, to the point I'd almost rather watch it in the original language subtitled (though that takes considerably more concentration).
I'm not sure how much of an issue this is to people who don't have English as a first language, where they have presumably encountered dubbed English films since childhood.
So, I transitioned to only watching subtitled movies around 16 once I could just buy dvds and have access to the original version.
With subbing, you can enjoy the real acting and easily follow along with what is being said so you can understand the plot as well.
Of course, there's something lost in translation with subbing as well, but it's still much closer to the original than a dub.
Please never judge a movie by the quality of a dub.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norsemen_(TV_series)
It's on Netflix: quite amusing.
First 2 seasons were great in places, I stopped watching the third.
It's a great show that manages to be both about Vikings and modern Norway at the same time.
The result is inferior most of the time.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Angels_%28film%29
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wings_of_Desire
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanilla_Sky
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Your_Eyes_%281997_film%29
This was probably due to the fact that until some time earlier people had not actually ever heard _anyone_ speaking, these were amongst the first movies which had audio, they just had not thought of dubbing.
But they started applying normal dubbing soon after: according to wikipedia, the "self-dubbed" movies were produced between 1929 and 1931 but then stopped.
A fun side effect of this is that the new dubbers kept the odd english accent! So if you get a copy of later movies where Hardy is dubbed by Alberto Sordi (one of the greatest actors of italian cinema) you can hear him make this funny fake accent, and mispronouncing words (e.g. very famously "stupìdo" rather than "stùpido").
The first special was written in English, then translated to German, and all Python members learned their German lines by heart. They didn't have time for the second special, so that one was dubbed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Python%27s_Fliegender_Zi...
They're on YouTube with English subtitles: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHs45_EQvO0
Yes, you really can hear the whole album in German.
For a more extreme example, Pocahontas' "Colors of the Window" in 33 languages: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLKD8tIMlV8
So, they made a deal and Library of Congress broke it? Or is it still on loan or is it a copy?
It would be fun to see this, but I get the impression that it would involve a visit to the Library of Congress. Or maybe Cuba?
Is there more information on the Library web site that I’m missing?
While Netflix has stellar Spanish shows/movies from El silencio del pantano (movie) to El desorden que dejas (show), it's a fun break from Netflix with a large catalog of eras (1950-2000) that Netflix doesn't have at all.
I wouldn't normally watch a movie from 1957, but there's something easier about doing that when it's a culture you weren't born into. I think this is the spice of learning another language, especially for us native English speakers since we have no real impetus beyond leisure to engulf ourselves in other languages/cultures. IME this is something people take for granted who learn English as a 2nd language and wonder why English speakers are monolingual.
This comment doesn't fit here (just triggered by Spanish and Dracula and a couple statements in TFA) but it's something I was thinking about over the last couple days that I wanted to jettison into the ether.
The acting was a lot more flamboyant in the Spanish version , I kind of prefer it in some ways.
We were the most popular Java desktop app at the time, circa 2005, P2P file sharing. At the time, we had approximately 60 million client GUIDs connecting to the network per month (or was that quarterly?, in any case, tons of users). It was a small company, 5 developers, 13 employees total.
One of the largest costs was bandwidth for the free version of the software. We already had a mechanism for using the P2P network to save bandwidth on version upgrades of the free version. The hello handshake between peers included the serial number for a signed (1024-bit DSA) XML message containing the SHA-1 hash of the latest free installer. If the serial numbers didn't match, the out-of-date peer would download the latest XML message from the other. Within 60 seconds of a new release coming out, over 99% of the online nodes would have the SHA-1 hash of the latest free installer and start downloading the latest free version installer from each other.
Edit: Originally, the XML update messages just had a URL for the installer. We accidentally DDoS'd ourselves the first time we used it, with millions of users flooding in within minutes of the latest release, so we added a randomized delay over 24 hours for actually notifying the user of a new version. After we added the P2P download of the upgraded installer, we still redirected the user to our website for the upsell opportunity. I don't recall how we got the already-downloaded installer to launch after visiting our website.
So, one of the other developers and I wrote a proof-of-concept minimal C++ installer. Its only GUI was a progress bar. It had just the DSA verification code from Crypto++, a minimal parser for just the subset of XML we were using, and enough of the P2P protocol to bootstrap into the network and download the latest free installer. It would check the SHA-1 of the downloaded installer and then launch the downloaded installer. It was less than 1/100th the size of the actual application installer, and had the advantage that it would always install the absolute latest release version of the free version of the application.
Also, the monthly profit sharing payment was roughly the same as my salary. For more senior developers, it exceeded their salary, so we were all highly incentivized to cut costs.
The COO/CTO shot down our proof of concept with just vague worries that we might have broken something, that maybe it only worked from the office and our apartments. He had no concrete criticisms.
So, the next time the COO/CTO went on vacation, we went into the webserver and replaced the full sized free version installer with the tiny stub installer. The first time the free version started up after install and successfully bootstrapped onto the P2P network, it would make a tiny HTTP request to our webserver, so we could monitor for problems.
We watched carefully the metrics for successful first-time P2P bootstraps, and they were fine. We were all very happy. About an hour later, the COO/CTO called into the office from the beach on a Monday morning. He said we broke something. We asked what we broke, and he said he wasn't sure, but he was checking total badwidth usage, and it dropped off a cliff about an hour earlier. We told him to calm down, than free version successful connection rates were unchanged... but that stub installer he had nixed was saving bandwidth.
He wasn't happy, but agreed to let us to continue trialing the stub installer while he was on vacation. We were the only two C++ developers at LW, and we both left for Google within a year. The stub installer stayed in production for a year or so after we left, but eventually they got rid of it due to maintenance concerns.
Edit 2: "The Bulgarian Nuclear Option": I noticed a flaw in that we used a Java long for the XML message serial number, not an arbitrary precision integer. When the recording industry started threatening a lawsuit and the owner asked us to start researching options for a censored version of LW, one of the developers claimed he took my observed flaw and signed a message with serial number Long.MAX_VALUE to lock everything at the current version. He claimed he had this final version message on his home machine and had a chatbot mechanism he could activate from his cell phone to be able to lock out the owner from being able to auto-update people to a censored version. The developer in question was from Bulgaria, and hence, this was "The Bulgarian Nuclear Option". News got back to the owner, and I heard that the developer in question came back white as a sheet from being called into the owner's office. The Bulgarian wasn't the other C++ dev.
Well, we went to Google because the RIAA filed a lawsuit and it was clear the owner didn't have a great plan of what to do, vacillating between shutting down the company and fighting the lawsuit. Another year or two later, a third of the five developers joined us at Google and the other two were at hedge funds.
It was a 5-developer startup. Everything was played fast-and-loose. It was a P2P file sharing startup, post-Napster, clearly a risk-taking environment. It was a minor offense in that corporate culture, and it made a 90% drop in one of our biggest expenses. It was a 13-person company pulling in over 1 million USD / month in revenue. It was clearly a smart risk to take, we were monitoring it, and it would have taken literally seconds to undo it.
Also, the Bulgarian Nuclear Option guy (not the other C++ dev) didn't get fired. You could plot a technical mutiny to thwart a corporate legal settlement, and get off with a stern warning. That's the kind of company it was.