Which do you prefer?
Only subs - original audio is best.
45.9%
1,121
Mostly subbed, some dubbed.
29.7%
725
Only dubbed - I like it in my native language.
2.3%
57
Mostly dubbed, some subbed.
8.0%
195
Both subbed and dubbed equally.
11.5%
280
Raw.
2.6%
64
2,442 votes
| It would seem so then... I guess I was judging the content of english dubbed anime ignorantly. |
 |
Lucjan said: It would seem so then... I guess I was judging the content of english dubbed anime ignorantly. I love you so much right now. Now if only we could get the others to realize this. :< |
You can find me on IRC. |
| Got a question to any non-english person here who support anime dubs. You would also support dubbing all hollywood movies and american tv-series you have seen to your native language right? (replacing voices like Morgan Freeman, Al Pacino, John Travolta, Bruce Willis, Samuel L. Jackson etc.) If not, why not and how does it differ from anime dubs. |
| I can answer that. I mostly don't like dubs in my native language (Movies are okay most of the time, but I can only watch a few series in german). But I love many of them in english. Probably exactly BECAUSE it is not my native language. I can totally understand it if americans don't want to watch english dubs because it sounds cheeesy (I can however not understand if they make it sound like their preference has anything to do with objective truth ;)). The same goes for german dubs for me. But luckily I can enjoy english dubs without them sounding cheesy, because it's not my native language :P. Have to add, that I don't have a problem with german dubbed series/movies, but mostly I prefer them in english. Though I would not say it is because it is the language it is produced in (although this argument would actually count for REAL ACTORS), but because I like english in general. In the end the only series I can enjoy watching dubbed in german are series like Scrubs or King of Queens which I watched for years in german before switching to english. Series I got to know on english (How I met your mother, my Name is Earl, Modern Family) are horrible/unimaginable in german. But I'm fully aware, that it is mostly preference (but f.e. My name is Earl in german is just objectively bad ^^). So to repeat myself, I can understand it if people prefer subs, because they are used to it. But it's just phony to state they "are just always better" just based on your preference. Sorry to say, but the original actor argument just does not count in animated series where the process of choosing voice actors is handled fairly similar in most countrys. btw that is also why the whole Poll is not fair imo, because even in the options an argument that is not viable is used for both the sub and the dub choice :P ^^. There is no original audio in animes (I don't consider time an criteria for originality. Though I know opinions differ on this subject) In real movies/series the dialogue is part of the acting performance, but in animes there is no such thing as acting performance so the requirements for voice actors are the same all around the world. And I like dubbed anime only if they are NOT in my native language :P So the poll options actually suck, but well, this topic is more about sub vs dub war than about opinions anyway ^^ |
| I probably regret this post by now. |
| I got more. America, as far as I can tell anyway, doesn't produce as much animation as Japan, so if you're going to compare anime to just "American shows" I assume that means things that aren't animated, and overdubbing those is different because now the original voice argument is actually completely valid. When actual actors are being filmed the voice you hear actually belongs to them, as opposed to animation (like I said on the last page, subs count as "dubbed anime") where someone has to put a voice over the character. |
| I go for subbed because I want to hear the original voices. But I can see dub too if there aren't other choices. But well, if I start to watch subbed, after I can't watch the same series dubbed. I become nervous. |
| subs all the way most of the time, but once im used to a dubbed voice (only happened twice, once with DBZ and once with yugioh) the subbed voice sounds weird to me, and vice versa. i still prefer subbed just because i can understand most of the anime without subs so the subtle meanings in the japanese is more interesting to me, that and the fact that alot of subs fail to translate some stuff correctly. |
 |
| Both as long as you can understand what is being said whether I read that or hear that I don't mind. |
| Oh, and Welcome to the NHK was dubbed fantastically, so there are a few dubs I like. |
|
| Personally, I prefer subs so that I can hear the original voices, and I can see (read) what the american companies would have cut out. Hearing the japanese voices, and being able to know what they are saying also helps me in my studies of the japanese language/culture. I started watching subs YEARS ago and got hooked. So unless the anime is only available dubbed, I'll watch it with subs. I have to agree with previous statements that there are some shows out there that have really good dubs. |
red_wolf41 said: I can see (read) what the american companies would have cut out. More complaints about cuts? Really? I know dub hatred will never completely be erased, but I figured that people might at least be able to see that not every dub is 4kids' One Piece. |
Lucjan said: Oh, and Welcome to the NHK was dubbed fantastically, so there are a few dubs I like. Hm, that's interesting. I'm rewatching it at the moment but had no idea it was even licensed, let alone dubbed (well!) -- doesn't strike me as the sort of show that would do well in the US. I may have to see about buying it if it's available here. |
Asako said: Lucjan said: Oh, and Welcome to the NHK was dubbed fantastically, so there are a few dubs I like. Hm, that's interesting. I'm rewatching it at the moment but had no idea it was even licensed, let alone dubbed (well!) -- doesn't strike me as the sort of show that would do well in the US. I may have to see about buying it if it's available here. http://www.amazon.com/Welcome-NHK-Complete-Box-Set/dp/B002BWD73W/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1276824125&sr=8-1 |
|
Onibokusu said: Asako said: Lucjan said: Oh, and Welcome to the NHK was dubbed fantastically, so there are a few dubs I like. Hm, that's interesting. I'm rewatching it at the moment but had no idea it was even licensed, let alone dubbed (well!) -- doesn't strike me as the sort of show that would do well in the US. I may have to see about buying it if it's available here. I've watched NHK dubbed myself, and I have to agree with Lucjan. They did a great job with the emotional aspect of the series, even Ayres voice fit will for Kaoru (although it was just his usual stint). Agreed. I consider pretty much any dub with Chris Patton as a main character to be great. |
Redfoxoffire said: Correct.I got more. America, as far as I can tell anyway, doesn't produce as much animation as Japan, so if you're going to compare anime to just "American shows" I assume that means things that aren't animated Redfoxoffire said: That's like saying the term "original voices" doesn't exist in anime., and overdubbing those is different because now the original voice argument is actually completely valid. When actual actors are being filmed the voice you hear actually belongs to them, Redfoxoffire said: Replacing a character voice in animation is the same as not replacing a character voice in animation when subs are present?as opposed to animation (like I said on the last page, subs count as "dubbed anime") where someone has to put a voice over the character. |
| That's because they don't. They have to get someone's voice to match the character in animation, but in live action TV, every part of the actor becomes the character, so it's more fluid. This argument holds especially true when the anime is based off another source, so the voices aren't even guaranteed to be the true voices (aka what the author imagined them to be like). |
    |
ARXLaevatein said: That's because they don't. They have to get someone's voice to match the character in animation, but in live action TV, every part of the actor becomes the character, so it's more fluid. This argument holds especially true when the anime is based off another source, so the voices aren't even guaranteed to be the true voices (aka what the author imagined them to be like). Look at it this way. Both tv-shows and animated shows using scripts, contain fictional characters. Both use actors to fill the roles of the made-up characters (finding matching voices etc.). It's true that one is both the visual and aural aspect of a person while the other is just the aural, but since we are talking about dubs and voices, the visual aspects are irrelevant. |
V3x said: That's like saying the term "original voices" doesn't exist in anime. The way I see things? It doesn't. When thinking of something being called "original," I'd sooner think of something along the lines of a song that has been remixed, with the non-remixed version being the original. When comparing that to this argument, it's more like two songs of the same genre but with different lyrics; one came first, but it's not really "original" when compared to the other and the one you prefer really comes down to personal taste. I'm not too good at analogies, though, so that might not be completely accurate. Replacing a character voice in animation is the same as not replacing a character voice in animation when subs are present? In a roundabout way, yes. Both are giving a voice to the character. Both are "dubbing anime." Pixels on a screen don't come prepared with a voice, actors do. V3x said: Look at it this way. Both tv-shows and animated shows using scripts, contain fictional characters. Both use actors to fill the roles of the made-up characters (finding matching voices etc.). It's true that one is both the visual and aural aspect of a person while the other is just the aural, but since we are talking about dubs and voices, the visual aspects are irrelevant. It's not at all irrelevant. Mouth movements in animation are mostly just lips moving up and down, whereas when filmed actors are speaking you can more clearly see what they're saying through their mouth movements (lip-reading and all). Not only that, the voice actually belongs to the person you see saying those words. Animated characters have no voice of their own. |
V3x said: Look at it this way. Both tv-shows and animated shows using scripts, contain fictional characters. Both use actors to fill the roles of the made-up characters (finding matching voices etc.). It's true that one is both the visual and aural aspect of a person while the other is just the aural, but since we are talking about dubs and voices, the visual aspects are irrelevant. True, to some extent. However, consider shows which are based off an original manga or light novel, or something. Characters in these series are created often times without a voice in mind. Sure, maybe the original author had a voice for that character, but who knows if it's of a real person's? Picking roles for these characters then would just be the animation studio's attempt to place what they see as their "perfect roles" onto these characters. These "perfect roles" are not necessarily what the author saw them as, so they wouldn't be original voices. |
|
ARXLaevatein said: V3x said: True, to some extent. However, consider shows which are based off an original manga or light novel, or something. Characters in these series are created often times without a voice in mind. Sure, maybe the original author had a voice for that character, but who knows if it's of a real person's? Picking roles for these characters then would just be the animation studio's attempt to place what they see as their "perfect roles" onto these characters. These "perfect roles" are not necessarily what the author saw them as, so they wouldn't be original voices. I get your point. But for me, "original" is whatever the anime started out with after its creation, regardless of potential voice interpretations from earlier material. The reason why I look at it that way, is because nearly every work of art, movie, song, book, character etc. in the world is inspired or based on one or several already existing sources in a lesser or greater degree. Using the word original for actual original work would be next to impossible. |
| Yeah, but basing things off of another source and directly taking from a source are completely different things. Would you argue that a character in a movie that only takes elements from different pieces of fiction isn't a unique entity? That would be unfair to the character, to call him/her a non-unique entity. However, being that adaptations are directly taking content from the source material and bringing them to an animated format, the characters in the animated format are the same as those in the source material, unless the adaptation goes out of its way to make the characters different. I'd give examples, if you'd like. |
|
| some times dubs work out but not a alot. and why is raw even an option only a native jap would vote that |
| There are people who know enough Japanese to watch RAWs, you know. |
|
Redfoxoffire said: V3x said: That's like saying the term "original voices" doesn't exist in anime. The way I see things? It doesn't. When thinking of something being called "original," I'd sooner think of something along the lines of a song that has been remixed, with the non-remixed version being the original. When comparing that to this argument, it's more like two songs of the same genre but with different lyrics; one came first, but it's not really "original" when compared to the other and the one you prefer really comes down to personal taste. I'm not too good at analogies, though, so that might not be completely accurate. Think I get what you mean. But I look at characters in anime in the same way as characters in tv-shows. The characters are made-up and defined by a script. Both use actors to relay the aural aspects as written in the script. By this definition, the original voice argument goes for both. Redfoxoffire said: V3x said: Replacing a character voice in animation is the same as not replacing a character voice in animation when subs are present? In a roundabout way, yes. Both are giving a voice to the character. Both are "dubbing anime." Pixels on a screen don't come prepared with a voice, actors do. Both are giving a voice to the character yes. But one is the voice it was released with while the other is a replacement of the voice it was released with. Adding pixels to the screen (subs) does in no way replace the voice. You still hear the same sound, as opposed to dubbing. I assume you mean something like both subs and dubs are like a layer the information goes through. With subs, you read and therefore get the meaning through an added layer. With dubs, you get the meaning though an added layer which is the replaced voices. Where the term layer is like a metaphor. Redfoxoffire said: V3x said: Look at it this way. Both tv-shows and animated shows using scripts, contain fictional characters. Both use actors to fill the roles of the made-up characters (finding matching voices etc.). It's true that one is both the visual and aural aspect of a person while the other is just the aural, but since we are talking about dubs and voices, the visual aspects are irrelevant. It's not at all irrelevant. Mouth movements in animation are mostly just lips moving up and down, whereas when filmed actors are speaking you can more clearly see what they're saying through their mouth movements (lip-reading and all). Not only that, the voice actually belongs to the person you see saying those words. Animated characters have no voice of their own. I still think it is. The similarity of animated mouth movements can easily match those of a filmed actor. It's just a matter of increasing the quality enough and there would be no difference on the pixels you are presented with. The voices in tv-shows comes from coded streams of data which is transformed into sound. The same goes for voices in anime. My point is that you can't use the "real or actual person" argument because the shapes of pixels only represents the appearance of the actor, not the actor him/herself. |
ARXLaevatein said: Yeah, but basing things off of another source and directly taking from a source are completely different things. Yes, but I don't think there's a clear line that separates the two. When producing an anime from a manga, it's like you have a puzzle board with a reasonably big amount of pieces missing. Those pieces are aspects that must be "created" in order to make the transfer from still drawn pictures. All kinds of movement, body language, everything about the animation-process, music, sounds, voices etc. My point is that you can't negate the "based on" part very easy when it comes to still-drawn pictures or text only->anime. |
| I think all these technicalities have put us on too much of a tangent... |
ARXLaevateinJun 17, 2010 9:06 PM
|
| Well, we are on page 92. What did you expect :P Edit: I think I've forgotten what I was trying to prove with that question a few pages back. It was supposed to be relevant -_- |
V3xJun 17, 2010 9:07 PM
| And I meant things like modern re-imagining. For instance, let's take Gurren Lagann and Monster. Gurren Lagann is a throwback to old super robot shows like Mazinger Z, Getter Robo, and GaoGaiGar. Kamina, in particular, is also a throwback to the old super robot heroes. However, he's not the same as them, not at all. Whereas, Monster is considered one of the closest adaptations to its source. I can confidently state that the Dr. Tenma in the anime is the same character as the Dr. Tenma in the manga. |
|
| I know, I'm surprised at the intelligent debate we have, too! |
|
V3x said: Think I get what you mean. But I look at characters in anime in the same way as characters in tv-shows. The characters are made-up and defined by a script. Both use actors to relay the aural aspects as written in the script. By this definition, the original voice argument goes for both. I don't think we're on the same page anymore. Yes, both actors. However, in one medium you actually see the person who is speaking, while in the other you only hear them and see what is essentially a different "person" so to speak. This is a relevant difference. Redfoxoffire said: Both are giving a voice to the character yes. But one is the voice it was released with while the other is a replacement of the voice it was released with. Not exactly. It's more a case of putting a different voice on at a later time than actually replacing. If it was always replacement, we wouldn't have anime that was dubbed in English first because it wouldn't even be possible. Adding pixels to the screen (subs) does in no way replace the voice. You still hear the same sound, as opposed to dubbing. This is meaningless for the current point. It could be used for a different point, and I could counter it if you want to go there, but unless you pursue it I see no reason to do so. And since we're already so deep in this anyway, don't just say "dubbing." Remember, all anime is dubbed. V3x said: I still think it is. The similarity of animated mouth movements can easily match those of a filmed actor. It's just a matter of increasing the quality enough and there would be no difference on the pixels you are presented with. Can is the key word here. Yes, that can happen. However, that is very rare. At least, most of the anime I've watched doesn't have it. English dubs also can cut and edit things, but as has been said 9,001 times this is not something that actually happens often these days. The voices in tv-shows comes from coded streams of data which is transformed into sound. The same goes for voices in anime. My point is that you can't use the "real or actual person" argument because the shapes of pixels only represents the appearance of the actor, not the actor him/herself. I feel like you're looking for an argument where one doesn't exist. Your first two sentences are true, but it doesn't actually change a thing I've been saying. Tell me, have you watched an overdub of something that isn't animated? It's likely you'll notice that it just doesn't feel right, even if you haven't seen it in its original language. The difference exists. Go find the first Death Note movie English dubbed and you should see what I mean. |
Lucjan said: http://www.amazon.com/Welcome-NHK-Complete-Box-Set/dp/B002BWD73W/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1276824125&sr=8-1 Unfortunately Amazon won't ship R1s here. :( |
Onibokusu said: Amazon ships internationally, unless you live in Hawaii or Alaska and want to buy groceries from them. Not DVDs, they don't. I buy manga through them since it beats prices here, but they limit DVD sales. (Just got some manga + novels today, in fact. Arrived very early since they estimated the 19th of July. Glad I didn't pay express if standard got here in a week. |
Redfoxoffire said: Returning to the part about original voices. If an actor that plays the voice of a character is not represented visually, and that voice was used during the production of an animated show, then at a later time, another voice track is added instead, the first voice is the first voice and the second is not the first voice as there can't be two first voices. Unless the process starting from the idea to the finished recording of the voice to the release of an animated show was performed by and during the same time as the process from idea to finished product and release for any other voices (what the majority would call dubbed voices), they will not be the same. This assumes the author/company/producer (responsible group for producing the anime) initiates both processes directly.V3x said: I don't think we're on the same page anymore. Yes, both actors. However, in one medium you actually see the person who is speaking, while in the other you only hear them and see what is essentially a different "person" so to speak. This is a relevant difference.By my definition of original, belonging or pertaining to the origin or beginning of something, or to a thing at its beginning., the first voice would be just that. I can agree that when they put everything together, the voice track is added together with the sounds and video, no matter if it is the first or second or third voice. By that logic, all anime is "dubbed", and the only difference would be which voice that was released with the animated show first. Redfoxoffire said: I go by this definition, Dubbing is the post-production process of recording and replacing voices on a motion picture or television soundtrack subsequent to the original shooting schedule. It's exactly because the first voices concieved, added and released with the animated show are the original, that it is called replacement.V3x said: Not exactly. It's more a case of putting a different voice on at a later time than actually replacing. If it was always replacement, we wouldn't have anime that was dubbed in English first because it wouldn't even be possible.Redfoxoffire said: Because the characters in animated shows are only voiced by actors, not played by them directly, you say they are dubbed. By this logic, subs = dubs. That's why you disregarded my part about subs as they weren't relevant to the point. I will not argue against this here, as it would just overlap with other parts.V3x said: This is meaningless for the current point. It could be used for a different point, and I could counter it if you want to go there, but unless you pursue it I see no reason to do so.And since we're already so deep in this anyway, don't just say "dubbing." Remember, all anime is dubbed. Redfoxoffire said: My point with mouth movements and quality, was that they in animated shows are somewhere between 1 and 100 in terms of similarity to actors playing characters in tv-shows, where 100 is the highest form and 1 is the lowest form of equality. If it is black and white, there would be a number that from there on and up made the lip movements and the voice suddenly go from "belonging to the character" (tv-shows) to "not belonging to the character" (animated shows). This representation is wrong. So, how equal or far away animated character's lip movements are from actors playing characters doesn't and shouldn't matter. What you see on the screen are both visual representations of characters moving their lips more or less in accordance with the representations of voices that is associated with them. There is a difference in equality, but the principle is the same.V3x said: Can is the key word here. Yes, that can happen. However, that is very rare. At least, most of the anime I've watched doesn't have it. English dubs also can cut and edit things, but as has been said 9,001 times this is not something that actually happens often these days.Redfoxoffire said: If I didn't know it was a dub, I would most likely note a difference with tv-shows because of the clear desynched mouth movements, but probably not for most anime.V3x said: I feel like you're looking for an argument where one doesn't exist. Your first two sentences are true, but it doesn't actually change a thing I've been saying. Tell me, have you watched an overdub of something that isn't animated? It's likely you'll notice that it just doesn't feel right, even if you haven't seen it in its original language. The difference exists. Go find the first Death Note movie English dubbed and you should see what I mean.After thinking about where I want to go here, this looks kinda off track yeah xD Back to the original question that started all this. V3x said: Lip synch is a legitimate reason for saying that there is a difference. But hypothetically, if the lip synch was perfect for dubbed tv-shows, the voice wouldn't be coming from the actor playing the character, just like voices doesn't come from the character in dubbed anime. There wouldn't be any difference between the dubs right. |
| Got a question for ya, V3x, how would you feel about, say, Devil May Cry? While the games, which came first, never had a Japanese audio track (and instead, the English audio track was the original), how do you feel about the anime, which did have a Japanese audio track recorded for airing? Would you side with the Japanese dub because its the first voice track made for the show, or the English dub, because its the first voice track made for the characters and the franchise proper? Also, how do you feel about shows where the characters are clearly not speaking Japanese in universe (examples include Monster, LotGH, and Baccano)? |
|
| I feel like the current argument has gone off course and is now getting into things that don't really matter for this. I'll wait until you respond to ARXLaevatein's above question. |
red_wolf41 said: Personally, I prefer subs so that I can hear the original voices, and I can see (read) what the american companies would have cut out. Hearing the japanese voices, and being able to know what they are saying also helps me in my studies of the japanese language/culture. Why do you people keep using "you learn Japanese" as an advantage over dubs? what so great about the japanese language anyway? Its not like its a major language that is spoken all over the world. Its not useful. Also even if it was you wouldn't be able to learn Japanese from reading subs since the fansubbers rewrite alot of parts of the original japanese script, load a fansub in vlc and youl see alot of hidden comments about alot of the lines were changed to sound better in english and stuff like that. Also the only american company that cuts stuff out is 4kids, everybody else releases their stuff uncut on dvd. The tv networks/ jap licensor make the american companies edit their stuff when they air it on tv but again thats what uncut dvds are for. Like with one piece toei made 4kids make most of those crappy edits. Get mad at the tv networks/jap licensor not the american companies. |
supersonic124Jun 19, 2010 10:58 AM
 |
takfuji200 said: cut vs uncut, the reason why certain things get on US released is because of US censorship laws.. toei don't say jack about how cuts are made, the censorship grading department does... Thats not true, quit making shit up, toei made 4kids do most of the edits, but 4kids did a few of their own but a majority were forced on 4kids by toei to get it on tv anyway possible, toei did the same thing to funimation with dbz back in the late 90s. Changing zoro's name to "zolo" has nothing to do with "us censorship Laws". Theres no such thing as a "censorship department", they just edited the show down to a tv-7 rating to get a bigger audience. They could have taken the tv-14 rating and aired it uncut but they wouldnt make as much money. What it comes down to is the jap licensors greediness, the lower the show's tv rating the bigger audience they can get. Toei even made funimation keep most of the 4kids edits when it was airing on cartoon network. It has nothing to do with "censorship". Also while 4kids a joke among anime fans their stuff isn't aimed at anime fans. Its aimed at 5-10 yr old kids not 18-30 yr old anime fans. So you have no right to complain unless your a 10 yr old kid since its not aimed at your age group. Also it doesn't matter what you "think" you cant tell if the fansubs translation is better unless your fluent in japanese. |
supersonic124Jun 19, 2010 3:17 PM
|
takfuji200 said: sadly some things don't translate to well as a certain phrase spoken in a certain way can have multiple meanings depending the octave range the comment is given in, sometimes I think the fansubbers get what is said right 85% of the time unlike commercial subbing which tends to throw a curve at 55% of the time, though mainly they use the english spoken script 75% of the time since they can't be bothered subbing the japanese spoken word correctly.. These percentages are such bullshit. And subtitles almost never match the English spoken script. Try putting on both subtitles and english audio at the same time, you'll see differences, and a lot of them, too. |
|
ARXLaevatein said: takfuji200 said: sadly some things don't translate to well as a certain phrase spoken in a certain way can have multiple meanings depending the octave range the comment is given in, sometimes I think the fansubbers get what is said right 85% of the time unlike commercial subbing which tends to throw a curve at 55% of the time, though mainly they use the english spoken script 75% of the time since they can't be bothered subbing the japanese spoken word correctly.. These percentages are such bullshit. And subtitles almost never match the English spoken script. Try putting on both subtitles and english audio at the same time, you'll see differences, and a lot of them, too. yeah 89% of all percentages are made up |
supersonic124Jun 19, 2010 4:10 PM
|
ARXLaevatein said: Got a question for ya, V3x, how would you feel about, say, Devil May Cry? While the games, which came first, never had a Japanese audio track (and instead, the English audio track was the original), how do you feel about the anime, which did have a Japanese audio track recorded for airing? Would you side with the Japanese dub because its the first voice track made for the show, or the English dub, because its the first voice track made for the characters and the franchise proper? Also, how do you feel about shows where the characters are clearly not speaking Japanese in universe (examples include Monster, LotGH, and Baccano)? To be honest. I don't think I would have had any problems with it. Probably because I have previous experience with the devil may cry games and their, horrible voice acting. I would associate DMC closer to english than japanese for the DMC universe, even though its animation style says japanese, and the voice acting couldn't possible be near the low quality of the games, so that would probably be no problem. Monster is set in germany, and I actually had some thoughts during, that I think I'd love it if they made it with german voices for such a great anime. The same goes for LotGH and english. And First Squad - Moment of Truth. Why did the germans speak russian :( I have watched some bad dubs (plus all my negative feelings towards the tendency to dub movies/tv-shows in germany and spanish speaking countries) and can't deny the possibility that it have affected my tendency to not consider dubs at all for anime :/ |
| ... DMC? Horrible voice acting? You don't like awesome Dante one liners? Does not compute. =/ Well, I'd like to think, nowadays, English language dubs are a cut above the rest. If what you say is true, it seems more like they dub shows because they have to, regardless of keeping quality or not. |
|
ARXLaevatein said: ... DMC? Horrible voice acting? You don't like awesome Dante one liners? Does not compute. =/ Well, they are memorable, but you can't say its high quality voice acting :p Btw. I tend to separate quality rating and entertainment/coolness value for more or less anything I judge when there is a relatively big difference. |
V3x said: Well, they are memorable, but you can't say its high quality voice acting :p Btw. I tend to separate quality rating and entertainment/coolness value for more or less anything I judge when there is a relatively big difference. I dunno, I think the dialogue has cheesiness down to an art. It's just highly enjoyable, and doesn't pretend to be much else. But horrible? Come now, there's so many other things you can call horrible. |
|
More topics from this board
» Is anime full of exposition?thewiru - 3 hours ago |
3 |
by valico
»»
2 minutes ago |
|
» Are there anime NOT for beginners?thewiru - 7 hours ago |
30 |
by Lucifrost
»»
5 minutes ago |
|
» ⌛ Best Girls of the Past Eras >Increased Limit ( 1 2 3 )Shizuna - Oct 10 |
142 |
by Jackson1333
»»
5 minutes ago |
|
» Do you have an anime addiction?HarrierDuBoisFan - Jul 1, 2023 |
45 |
by AllAlone8
»»
25 minutes ago |
|
» 🍷 AD Summer 2025 Best Girl Contest ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Shizuna - Sep 28 |
443 |
by ISeeLifePeople
»»
26 minutes ago |