Indeed, some dubs lovely It’s bad, but changing an actor’s face to convey a line that the actor himself didn’t actually speak means an entire inventory shelf full of cans of bugs, especially when you factor in cultural localization. To do. For example, the popular Pokémon known as “Jigglypuff” in the English-speaking world is “pudding” in Japan. The Jigglypuff name is the result of localization. Otherwise, it literally means “custard pudding”. Alternatively, if you use the onomatopoeia “puri puri”, the character name will become “angry hafu”. Localization happens when direct translation is awkward or culturally irrelevant, while seamless dubbing prevents the viewer from realizing that they are listening to the dubbed version rather than the original script.
This is a harmless example, but if the actor doesn’t have full control over the English translation of the dialogue, the actor’s face could be used to express lines or phrases they otherwise disagree with. Their voices may not actually be saying the words, but to the viewer watching the screen, it doesn’t matter much who made the decisions. It still looks like the lines uttered by the actor.
The company’s statement repeatedly mentions that the technology will be used by international films to reach audiences around the world, and while this is a good thing, it still struggles with what It also highlights how pathetic English-speaking viewers are. Bong Joon-ho famously called it “an inch wall of subtitles.” Translation and localization also remove the cultural specificity of the art, much like the English subtitles for “The Squid Game” changed a key storytelling element in the translation process.
