Blind and Visually Impaired Community
↑
5
↓
Are audio descriptions different between in-theater and on TV? (self.Blind)
submitted by kelpangler
I recently saw the new Spider-Man movie and decided to try the audio descriptions. The experience was pretty underwhelming. It seemed like there were a lot of parts skipped or the scenes were sparsely described. It was different from watching any movie at home. Is this just something that improves once the movie is on TV?
CloudyBeep 5 points 1y ago
You're not the only person I've heard complain about it. Check out the Audio Description Discussion group on Facebook for another complaint.
Films are often described several times. For Sony films, American theatrical description tracks tend to be preferred for inclusion on streaming services.
Highly anticipated films aren't given to AD companies in advance. Instead, AD writers go to the distributor's offices where they make copious notes as they watch the film. They are then provided with the soundtrack which they use to jog their memory as they write their AD script when they return to their own workplace. Normally, only the most qualified AD writers would write description "blind" like this. Most of the time, you'd never be able to tell the difference between blind AD and normal AD.
Another explanation is that AD is one of the last stages of post-production, and it's produced to very tight deadlines.
It's impossible to say whether it will be corrected for home release.
Films are often described several times. For Sony films, American theatrical description tracks tend to be preferred for inclusion on streaming services.
Highly anticipated films aren't given to AD companies in advance. Instead, AD writers go to the distributor's offices where they make copious notes as they watch the film. They are then provided with the soundtrack which they use to jog their memory as they write their AD script when they return to their own workplace. Normally, only the most qualified AD writers would write description "blind" like this. Most of the time, you'd never be able to tell the difference between blind AD and normal AD.
Another explanation is that AD is one of the last stages of post-production, and it's produced to very tight deadlines.
It's impossible to say whether it will be corrected for home release.
retrolental_morose 3 points 1y ago
I do wonder what people want from audio-description, though. As someone without eyesight and having never had any, for me the important thing is that the most visually-obvious material and that which is important for comprehending the story is given out first. I often watch movies with others, so having the useful detail from the outset is key, as is not taking up more time than on the original film soundtrack. Sighted friends and colleagues regularly pause videos for me to provide more detail, which is kind of them, but I'd sooner enjoy a TV show or movie in the same time as everyone else, and get as much as I can in that time rather than be 20 minutes behind the curve for the sake of more detail. Obviously in an ideal world I could see what was happening, but in the one in which I live, sharing the screen experience with my sighted friends and family and squeezing the vital detail into the descriptive track is, to my mind, the best approach - one which has given me the most freedom whilst retaining, as far as possible, parity with the rest of an audience
kelpangler [OP] 1 points 1y ago
That’s an interesting perspective. I still have functional vision so I can generally shapes and things moving around but I just can’t see the details. Like I might see a character pick something up but I don’t know what it is. So for me, if that’s somewhat important to the story then I’d want it described. But there are instances when it’s skipped. I understand there needs to be a balance though. In the case of Spider-Man it just seemed unusually sparse.
CloudyBeep 1 points 1y ago
But AD for movies and TV never goes beyond the length of the movie's soundtrack anymore.
retrolental_morose 3 points 1y ago
no, but the art of describing around dialogue and other effects is a necessary limit on the level of detail that can be imposed, which is part of my point. Surely describing video content is a balance between the words you can physically fit in the gaps and the choice as to the detail you provide.
CloudyBeep 1 points 1y ago
Yes.
DrillInstructorJan 2 points 1y ago
Sometimes in the UK we get the American ones, sometimes we get the UK ones. Have to say the American ones are often better. UK describers always sound like they're half asleep.
TechnicalPragmatist 1 points 1y ago
That’s interesting each country has their own versions.
kelpangler [OP] 1 points 1y ago
Oh I didn’t realize there could be different versions for English audio descriptions. Just thought it was whoever was hired for the job.
Wendy_corduroy20 1 points 1y ago
That’s interesting I thought the audio descriptions are fine although if there are multiple versions out there then maybe I just got a better one? I don’t know it was great. I think no matter what you can’t please everybody with audio descriptions some people really like straight into the point and others like more descriptive ones. Personally I liked this one because I could hear the soundtrack and the other audible aspects to the movie as well as getting broad descriptions of key moments happening on screen. But I could see your frustration and how you wished there was more detail.
[deleted] 1 points 1y ago
[deleted]
This nonprofit website is run by volunteers.
Please contribute if you can. Thank you!
Our mission is to provide everyone with access to large-
scale community websites for the good of humanity.
Without ads, without tracking, without greed.
scale community websites for the good of humanity.
Without ads, without tracking, without greed.
©2023 HumbleCat Inc • HumbleCat is a 501(c)3 nonprofit based in Michigan, USA.