Burk Talks Bigger Movie, Budgets, 3D, Roddenberry Vision & More At Star Trek Into Darkness Moscow Event | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Burk Talks Bigger Movie, Budgets, 3D, Roddenberry Vision & More At Star Trek Into Darkness Moscow Event March 20, 2013

by TrekMovie.com Staff , Filed under: Star Trek Into Darkness , trackback

As we have been reporting, Star Trek Into Darkness producer Bryan Burk has been on a global tour showing footage of the movie at special preview events for industry and press professionals. One of his stops late last week was in Moscow. TrekMovie Russian partner site trekker.ru was at the event and have provided us with an exclusive report.  

 

Burk Talks Into Darkness Differences, 3D and Big Budgets At Moscow Event

Late last week Star Trek Into Darkness producer Bryan Burk took his tour of showing footage of the film to industry and press to Moscow. At the event he introduced the footage by talking about the film and post-production. He began by describing the differences between 2009′s Star Trek and Star Trek Into Darkness, saying:

When we released our last Star Trek film we were fortunate to have a wonderful reaction from around the world. But when we started talking about doing a new film my fellow producers and I really didn’t want to take the success of that film for granted. We knew if we were going to do a new film we had to earn doing a new film. It had to be better than the last film. It had to have more drama. More action than the last one. More emotion than the last one. It had to have more impossible odds. It had to be bigger.

Burk’s global promotional tour does not include any 3D footage. While explaining why to the Moscow crowd he detailed the laborious process they are undergoing for the 3D conversion:

We decided for Star Trek we wanted to make [the 3D conversion] special, which is why nothing you are going to see tonight is in 3D. It turns out that the process that we chose to use is significantly more laborious and precise than we ever imagined. We are literally going shot by shot and frame by frame pushing things further than they have ever been pushed. Our stereographer – the guy who is in charge of doing 3D – we regularly have these conversations and he says ‘you can’t further than this, nobody goes further than this’ and we say ‘go further!’ So when the movie comes out we will have it in IMAX and in 3D – hopefully like nothing you have seen before.


Bryan Burk (with translator) talking to Moscow press and industry professionals
(Photo by Denis Ananiev)

It is noteworthy that this new tour Burk is on showing the first 30 minutes of the movie does not include any events in the USA. The reason for that is clear, Paramount is putting a lot of effort to boost Star Trek internationally – especially in non-English speaking countries where the franchise has never had big box office success. Specifically for Russia, 2009′s Star Trek was the first film in the franchise to get a wide release. So for this audience Burk emphasized how Star Trek Into Darkness was made for anyone, even those who have not seen the last movie, saying:

We also knew that if we were making this film, it would have to work for people who have never seen Star Trek. They had to be able to walk into the theater, sit down, and completely understand what is going on — learn to love these characters instantly with no knowledge of anything before. We didn’t want it to be a sequel, we wanted it to be it’s own film. So we thought we could do all of those things without compromising we could make a film for everyone.

We have reported before that of the five producers (Abrams, Orci, Lindelof, Kurtzman and Burk) that Bryan Burk was the one member of the group who wasn’t a Star Trek fan before getting involved with the franchise. In Moscow he spoke about his experience with Trek and how Bad Robot got Paramount to spend more on their Star Trek movies in order to attract a wider audience (including people like himself):

I quickly was thrown into the world of Star Trek and started learning a lot about it. Here is what I learned: Gene Roddenberry – the man who created Star Trek – was a genius. He made a [show] about us, about all of us getting together. And all of our problems, all of our wars, had all gone away. And we were all working together to survive. What is better than that? It is not about far away planets and distant aliens, it is about humans, about us, about Earthlings. Where we have to combine forces to explore and protect and to fight and to love for everything that is out there. So then I start wondering how is it I didn’t get that before. Why wasn’t I a Star Trek fan?

What I realized was, for years the old studio regime – many studio executives – always made Star Trek films for a very small segment who did love Star Trek films. They did not make them for me. They never spent the money on it – the resources were not made available like they were for other Hollywood films. Not to say that Gene Roddenberry and all the writers that followed him – let alone all the craftsmen and artists and production designers, cameramen and visual effects people – all these people were brilliant. Particularly because they had to make these films with limited resources and limited funds. So we said, if we were going to do a new Star Trek film we need more money. And we were going to put up all that on the screen. And fortunately for all of us, Paramount Pictures went beyond our expectations and supported it not only financially, but also creatively. Allowing us to do anything we wanted to do.


Russian poster for "Star Trek: Vengeance"
(aka Star Trek Into Darkness)

Special thanks to Oleg Ryzhikov (@elfwine) and Tatiana “JLPaparazzzzi” Gomozova of our Russian partner site trekker.ru  for providing Moscow reporting for this article.

Comments

1. BrandonR - March 20, 2013

I like what Burk said about what Star Trek means and how he was drawn into that. I hope that “Into Darkness” represents more of what Star Trek means than the previous film did. Although I liked the last film quite a lot, it lacked the message of prior Star Trek outings. If they can find a way to make a big action movie that includes the message of Star Trek, then the franchise will be well-served for many years to come and the public will be better off for it.

2. Phil - March 20, 2013

Traveling man…

3. Eprom - March 20, 2013

Where was Chekov?

4. Kane - March 20, 2013

Translated to normal, non-salesman speak:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87indycxudo

5. I am not Herbert - March 20, 2013

“Gene Roddenberry – the man who created Star Trek – was a genius.”

…and a truly visionary adept! =D

6. AJ - March 20, 2013

If any of the trekker.ru guys.пшкды are here, can you please let us know what cinemas will be showing the film in Russia this summer? I will be living in St. Petersburg most likely until the end of the year from mid-April.

По-русски разговариваю

7. Jonboc - March 20, 2013

Courting international interest is fine, and I cant blame Paramount for wanting to make as much money as they possibly can…but all I really care about is that bottom line that allows that magic green-light to turn on. Rake in enough dough domestically for another sequel to get the “go-ahead” and I really couldn’t care less about the box office take overseas!

8. I am not Herbert - March 20, 2013

…all about the (domestic) “benjamins”?

…all i need is enough money for another load of crap?

…no wonder “rest of world” could give a damn… =(

9. Anthony Pascale - March 20, 2013

Jonboc

Today tentpoles have to compete world wide. International is no longer just ‘extra’ on top of Domestic, it is now essential. Star Trek has under-performed and Paramount are trying to turn that around. If they cant, then Star Trek will no longer be seen as tentpole material and will return to 2nd class status at the studio, behind even the GI Joe franchise.

10. meepmeep189 - March 20, 2013

Right on #1!

11. I am not Herbert - March 20, 2013

…in my eyes, JJ-trek is already WELL behind GI Joe! LOL! =D

…will be interesting to see how they compare this summer! ;-)

12. NCC-73515 - March 20, 2013

Due do very bad marketing and voice acting, STXI did worse than Nemesis in Germany… the need for better worldwide attention is definitely there.

13. Keachickr - March 20, 2013

Good stuff here. Yes, I wonder where Anton Yelchin (Chekov) is. Surely, this would have been an excellent opportunity for the Russian speaking actor to speak on behalf of his character and for STID.

I have to wonder – does Chekov die in this movie?…:(

I hope that STID does well all over. Fingers crossed that it is everything I hoped for and more!

14. Chris Roberts - March 20, 2013

What must it be like? To play russian roulette with the studio’s money? :)

15. I am not Herbert - March 20, 2013

…if ya’ SMELL what THE ROCK is COOKIN’! =D

…you damn JABRONIS! ;-)

(NINJA FIGHT!!!)

(Rock was great as special guest star on ‘Enterprise’…)

16. Michael DeSanto - March 20, 2013

Paramount *did* give Gene Roddenberry the resources to make a huge, epic film in 1979. Despite making a modest profit, it was still incredibly expensive to produce. Once Harve Bennett and Nick Meyer showed that you could make a well-received Star Trek film with a limited budget, Paramount never looked back.

17. Keachickr - March 20, 2013

Do the Star Trek movies screened in non-English speaking countries use subtitles or voice actors? Having watched foreign films, subtitles seem to work better. Given that English as a second language is a compulsory subject in many European schools, it makes sense to do what was done with Top Gun.

I recall the first time I ever saw Top Gun (with Tom Cruise) was on a ferry going to Norway/Sweden. Many of the passengers were Swedish and so the subtitles were in Swedish (I think), with the English audio left in. A lot of the younger people on the ferry were fairly familiar with English anyway, so hearing it in English with subtitles was no bother for them. BTW – everyone loved the movie!

18. Jack - March 20, 2013

7. Except Paramount does. That’s where the real money can be made, I’m guessing. A lot of these massive, expensive movies get as much as 3/4 of their money from international box office. But Trek 09 got only 30% from the worldwide take. When movies cost $200 million+ to make (sure, Trek costs less, but still), they gotta do well worldwide, it seems. Heck, a lot of these movies did just fine even if you don’t include the North American box office.

Avatar made 720 million domestically — and an extra 2 billion internationally.

Avengers (2012): $623m D + $888m Int.
Skyfall (2012): $304m D + $803m Int.
DKR (2012): $448m D + $643m Int.
A. Spider-Man (2012): $262m D + $490m. Int
MI:4 (2011): $209m D + $485m. Int
H. Potter 8 (2011): $381m D + $947m Int.
Transform. 3 (2011): $352m D + $771m Int.

Trek 09 (2009): $258m D + $128m Int.
ST: Nemesis (2002): $43m D + $21m Int.

19. Jack - March 20, 2013

17. Often dubbing in much of Europe, I think. Subtitles in Asia. I could be wrong.

20. I am not Herbert - March 20, 2013

GI Joe 2 Retaliation : Meet Storm Shadow

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCp48L9nDug

THIS is how you KICK ASS!!!

21. Marja - March 20, 2013

I share Keachick’s apprehension about Chekov … especially since he’s now wearing the oft-fatal redshirt [I know, I know, dark humor]

It is really too bad they didn’t have Anton Yelchin on tour with Mr Burk. At the least a financially stupid decision, at the most insensitive to Russian viewers, whose interest they are trying to stimulate!

22. Jack - March 20, 2013

“at the most insensitive to Russian viewers”

Really?

23. Jack - March 20, 2013

19. I actually have no idea what I’m talking about. When I was in Europe it was mostly dubbing. Korea and Japan mostly subtitles. But I don’t really know the norm.

24. Anthony Pascale - March 20, 2013

insensitive? seriously?

Some people seem to go out of their way to gin up controversy and offense where there is none. The Russians I have talked to were impressed that Paramount even held the event and sent a producer. This event was for industry and press to build buzz for distribution and promotional partners. This wasn’t a media event with celebrities type of thing. That comes later. They brought Anton to Moscow for the premiere in 2009. I wouldnt be surprised to see them do that again.

25. Exverlobter - March 20, 2013

@Keachickr

The bigger the country/market, the greater the chance that you get a dubbed version. I live in Germany and Star Trek here is always dubbed.

Scandinavia is a too small and a not so significant market, therefore expensive dubbing is not worthwhile (subtitles are relatively cheap)

26. Exverlobter - March 20, 2013

I dont agree with Burk that the suits at Paramount did not put enough money into the Trek-Films. Star Trek for years was primarily a TV-Franchise, and it was THE biggest TV-franchise ever. The movies were just icing on the cake, a bit more expensive TV-episodes. Yes Star Wars had bigger movies, and bigger success at the Box-Office, but Star Wars had never a TVseries. You cannot compare that.
The impression that Trek was always mistreated is wrong.And now that Trek has been not on TV for a long time Paramount has finaly the ressources to put much money to solidify Trek as a Film-franchise. Now it can compete with Star Wars.
But only because there are currently no TV-series on air.

27. somethoughts - March 20, 2013

I am proud of these guys, GR would be proud to see how far ST has come and it is in good hands.

I cant wait to see the new trailers and the film in IMAX 3D, will there be a novel or anything collectable to buy? Scrapbook of day to day on set, script process, special effects and concepts etc

28. somethoughts - March 20, 2013

Collectable autographed cards by upper deck?

29. somethoughts - March 20, 2013

I want a dual patch numbered autograph card of pine and nimoy, boboci and court etc…

30. TrekkerChick - March 20, 2013

“Our 3D conversion goes up to 11″

/This is Spinal Trek

Seriously.. I can’t wait. My friend in the cube next to me and I are regularly talking about the movie…He and his wife are big Trek fans.. And I…Well I started attending Cons with EquiCon in LA back in ’75.

31. Kev-1 - March 20, 2013

I’m glad they have more money, but I think they spent most the extra funds on CGI. Not on sets or costumes. Specifically, the brewery engine room, the Vulcan outpost with its cinderblock walls, tiled floors and crash-bar equipped doors. And sundry poured concrete, girders and draped plastic inside the Enterprise.I think their interpretation of TOS costumes is interesting — layering — but obviously these uniforms are not tailored like the TV clothes. Maybe they want to feature the undershirt? And the biggest battle since the Dominion War, or Wolf 359 – in which Starfleet is wiped out by Nero — is not shown at all. CGI looks good, sometimes, but the “cheap” Trek movies managed to get some interesting sets (bar,security room, lounge in STIII) and iconic costumes (ST2 jfield jacket) with few bucks to spare. I’d like to see some of the extra dough spent on more than CGI.

32. Plum - March 20, 2013

Nice work ;)

33. edshrinker - March 20, 2013

I’ll say it again in case you missed the subtlety. I Am Herbert. You are a complete douchenozzle. Go see GI Joe and have fun in their thread. If they even have one. You are growing quite tiresome (to quote Sprockets).

34. AJ - March 20, 2013

24:

Anthony:

Anton went to Moscow for the last one, and, having lived there at the time, the impression my Russian work colleagues had was that this was “Star Wars with that Russian guy.”

Not that that’s bad, as it may put butts in seats, but Russia has no TV tradition of the “Trek” on TV. I think they had the death-throes of TNG with the last few films, but what the average Russian knows of Kirk and Spock, etc. came from the ’09 reboot.

The hope is,obviously, that STID will make the franchise stand up for itself in Russia and all countries that seem to be raking in profits these days.

35. MJ - March 20, 2013

@26 “I dont agree with Burk that the suits at Paramount did not put enough money into the Trek-Films. Star Trek for years was primarily a TV-Franchise, and it was THE biggest TV-franchise ever.”

Where do you get that from??? Gunsmoke ran for 20 years, Law and Order ran for 20 years, ER ran for 15 years, and MASH and Hawaii Five-0 ran for 12 years each.

36. The Sinfonian - March 20, 2013

@35 MJ, Star Trek has 3+2+7+7+7+4 seasons of television. I do believe that adds up to 30 years of Trek seasons.

37. Edshrinker - March 20, 2013

I AM SO SORRY! It is “I am NOT Herbert” On analysis, you do sound like a Herbert. Or Eugene.

I am letting this get to me. I have loved the TOS for a long time. AND I love what JJ has given us. The pedantic “aahh lens flair, Jar Jar Abrams, you ruined old trek, it is THE END OF THE WORLD, crap has me on edge.

A great cast. An interesting, thought provoking premise (time travel has altered the universe as we knew it) and great care put into the visuals… how is that not great news for trek fans?! We have a summer blockbuster instead of some ho -hum boring ass Christmas release of a movie that no one wants to see. And dare I say ..at this point with the Next Gen, would never get made! I am happy. VERY happy we have a re-imagined Trek with our favorite characters. It escapes me how some hold it in contempt. An action adventure. With some heady topics woven within. And to boot, our favorite characters in the middle. How is this a bad thing? In comparison to…NO MORE TREK. Because folks…after Enterprise and Insurrection, that Universe was DONE. Over. No more. Someone please explain to me why this attempt to give us this Universe and group of characters back is a bad thing? 2009 Trek was a good movie! Maybe not totally the vision held dear, but it was fun! And balanced several intriguing ideas. Time Travel Alternate universes. (Red)Anti-matter creating travel able white holes. For cryin out loud! Inception didn’t turn your head around so much. So please enlighten me. What would YOU have created to #1. SELL TICKETS AT THE BOX OFFICE (um…reason movies are made). #2. Stay true to what Star Trek is. Please. One idea. Mic drop. I am done.

38. Gary Makin - March 21, 2013

I am not Herbert but I am a troll – Star Trek 2009 made more money than GI Joe, and Into Darkness is going to beat Retaliation too.

39. Jerry Modene - March 21, 2013

I do take slight umbrage, however, to Burk’s comments about how Paramount only made the ST movies for the fans. What’s wrong with that? It was, after all, the fans that kept the franchise alive during the dark days of the 1970′s and made it possible for Paramount to make all those billions.

Besides, surely a sufficiently clever writer (or writers) could have made a film that could appeal to the masses while at the same time staying true to the fans – in fact, they did: Star Trek IV The Voyage Home, a solid crossover hit.

40. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - March 21, 2013

@37. Edshrinker

Agreed, wholeheartedly.

41. Red Dead Ryan - March 21, 2013

#39.

Come on, you can’t compare today’s market with that of twenty-five years ago.

The movie business is much bigger now than it has ever been. There is far more competition. The increase in the budgets of blockbusters is part of the “arms race” between studios who need to keep their film franchises going. With all the money spent on cgi and visual effects as well as massive sets and elaborate costumes, simply making movies strictly for the fans is suicidal for the studio’s bottom line.

Also, you can’t do the epic-scale, effects oriented, action-packed thrill rides like “The Dark Knight Trilogy”, “Star Wars”, “The Avengers” on a budget of merely $80 million. “Star Trek” eventually got to the point where a low budget showed up badly on screen, especially in comparison to the “Lord Of The Rings” movies and the “Star Wars” prequels.

A movie like “The Voyage Home” might have done well almost thirty years ago, but it would bomb at the box office today if that type of film were made today. There wasn’t nearly the same amount of competition that there is today. Movies today only have a window of maybe two months at the most to make money in the theatres. It has to also do well on home video, something that wasn’t as important back in the eighties.

42. MJ - March 21, 2013

@36: “@35 MJ, Star Trek has 3+2+7+7+7+4 seasons of television. I do believe that adds up to 30 years of Trek seasons.”

Oh, we are adding all the series together the? Well, OK, I can do that math too:

Law and Order = 20 seasons
Law and Order SVU = 14 seasons
Law and Order Criminal Intent = 11 season
L&O Trial by Jury and L&O LA = 2 seasons

Law and Order TV Franchaise Total = 47 Seasons

Law and Order is thus the most successful TV franchaise of all time, with over 50% more episodes that all of the Star Trek series.

CASE CLOSED !!!

43. MJ - March 21, 2013

Anthony: “Jonboc, today tentpoles have to compete world wide. International is no longer just ‘extra’ on top of Domestic, it is now essential. Star Trek has under-performed and Paramount are trying to turn that around. If they cant, then Star Trek will no longer be seen as tentpole material and will return to 2nd class status at the studio, behind even the GI Joe franchise.”

Anthony, I agree with you completely here. Jonboc simply does not understand the significant importance of growing the overseas market for Trek.

44. MJ - March 21, 2013

@37 / Edshrinker,

OUTSTANDING post, dude. I agree 100%

45. Red Dead Ryan - March 21, 2013

#42.

I agree. “Law & Order” is the most successful tv franchise in history. Not even close. Just look at the number of high-profile guest stars. Heck, even Captain Janeway appeared on SVU. :-)

Those shows (specifically the original plus SVU) also got better ratings than either TOS or TNG, both of which were the highest rated of the Trek franchise.

I will say though, that “Star Trek” would be the most successful TV/Film combo franchise in entertainment history.

And it is certainly the most successful sci-fi property (alongside “Dr. Who”) in history as well.

46. Red Dead Ryan - March 21, 2013

I will also say that Jonboc needs to do some research on the importance of overseas revenue for Hollywood films. And when I say research, I mean Jonboc taking the time to read Jack’s excellent factual post at #18.

For far too long, Paramount had ignored the huge markets in India, China, Russia, and South America.

47. MJ - March 21, 2013

@46 “I will also say that Jonboc needs to do some research on the importance of overseas revenue for Hollywood films. And when I say research, I mean Jonboc taking the time to read Jack’s excellent factual post at #18.”

Exactly. The facts on this are out there to be found if Jonboc is willing to at least do a little bit of research in learning about how major movies are marketed internationally these days.

These aren’t the 1990′s anymore, Jonboc. I recommend you update your knowledge in this area.

48. Oleg Ryzhikov aka Elfwine - March 21, 2013

@6 AJ
I think in late may and early june you will have a chance to see STID in ALL and ANY St. Petersburg movie theater.

49. Oleg Ryzhikov aka Elfwine - March 21, 2013

@21 Marja
Anthony is right, we are really glad, that there was any kind of preview event, and we were invited to it. Any famous guests, like producers or actors, are just extra icing on this rare Star Trek cake!

And about Anton Yelchin. He is a fine actor, and his Chekov is fun, but he really doesn’t attract hordes of crazy fans to Russian cinemas.
In fact, there are a lot more fans of Pine, Quinto, Urban or even Greenwood in Russia. And don’t get me started on Cumberbatch!!

50. anya - March 21, 2013

Chekov seems to have exactly one scene in the movie, so I doubt Yelchin will be doing much promoting anywhere.

@Oleg, not really. Most have never heard of either of these actors. There are definitely not “hordes” to speak of. And those who have seen ST 09 have all mentioned Chekov in some way.

Overall, I don’t think the movie is going to do too well in Russia, since Star Trek is still virtually unknown and ST09 just didn’t really create much of an audience and the producers must know it, hence they don’t bother too much with the marketing anyway.

51. Oleg Ryzhikov aka Elfwine - March 21, 2013

@anya
Yeah, the know Chekov – “that strange funny russian from Star Trek”, but no fans of Yelchin.

When talking about fans, I was referring to sci-fi and other tv show fandoms. Quinto is known for Heroes, Urban for Dredd and other stuff. Sherlock is also well known, of cause.

52. anya - March 21, 2013

Oh, Yelchin is known for being pretty much the only Russian born actor who ever made it anywhere in Hollywood.

What is Dredd? I’ve only reconized Urban from LotR myself, lol.
Heroes, Sherlock – not actually well known at all though in Russia, especially among “non nerds”.

53. Oleg Ryzhikov aka Elfwine - March 21, 2013

@anya
It seems, that I don’t have a lot of “non nerd” friends :)

54. Exverlobter - March 21, 2013

@MJ
Ok, maybe Law and order maybe the biggest TV franchise ever.
But Star Trek comes very close. Maybe its better to compare Trek to Star Wars (the supposed mainstream sf-franchise) anyway and leave Law and order out of the discussion.
Burke talks here as if Trek is sort of a Low Budget franchise for rare nerds the mainstream does not care about.
As said, this might be the case for the cinema, where Star Wars performed always better. The movies were extended episodes. If you regard Star Trek as a movie-franchise until the 2009 film, yes then it was indeed sort of a low budget franchise and was no match for Star Wars.
But not in terms of Television.

55. AJ - March 21, 2013

Well, the wonderful Mila Kunis is probably the biggest Hollywood actress from the ex-USSR, but she is Jewish, and was born in western Ukraine, which is not Russia. She tries to avoid speaking Russian when asked in the US, but I caught her on Russian TV trying, and she was really rusty.

I was surprised when I met Walter Koenig in the early 1990′s, and spoke Russian with him. His accent was native, as his parents were Russian Jews from Lithuania. I was actually blown away by this, because I thought his Star Trek accent was forced and fake.

For both Koenig and Yelchin, the big ongoing joke is that Germanic fake over-accenting of the language. The sound of the letter “V” is very much a used consonant in all Slavic languages. Russians say “Victor” as “Veektor” (Виктор). Indeed, when Yelchin’s Chekov introduces himself, he says “Chekov! Pavel Andreyevich!” He pronounces the “v” three times before saying “Weektor” into the computer as a tribute to Koenig’s previous mispronunciations.

Ё-моё!

56. anya - March 21, 2013

Mila Kunis is a Ukrainian Jew, she has absolutely nothing to do with Russia. That would be like the US taking credit for a Canadian actress. I don’t know anyone in Russia who relates to her.

The fake accents are not Germanic, Germanic languages (like German and English) all make use of a hard “v”.
Not sure where this “w” thing comes from except that I do know people that simply confuse the “w”s and the “v”s in English, not because they can’t pronounce them necessarily but because they are not sure when to use what. That’s not exclusive to Slavic speakers though.

57. Keachick - March 21, 2013

I realize that this might seem a silly notion but I wonder if perhaps one of the reasons why Star Trek may not do as well outside of English speaking countries is because the movies are dubbed. I am assuming that Star Trek 09 was dubbed for most overseas audiences.

I have watched foreign movies where some have used English subtitles, while others have dubbed them using English speaking voice actors. Depending on the movie, I have always been able to happily watch the ones with subtitles, but not the ones that are dubbed. The dubbing is always out of synch with what I am watching. It is hard not to be because while you are watching the character visually verbalize a particular sound shape, you are hearing something else that does match what you are seeing. How can it be in sync? It has a jarring and distracting effect on me, in the way that reading subtitles does not have.

I am wondering if this might be putting off foreign audiences, especially if there is quite a bit of (complicated) dialogue.

Another aspect is – how can a non-English speaking audience member in, say a German cinema, appreciate the sound and resonance of a Cumberbatch voice, for example, if his voice is being dubbed by another person? Voices are like fingerprints and carry their own mana (for want of a better word) that can transcend localized languages.

Do we dub opera? Then why movies?

58. Exverlobter - March 21, 2013

@Keachik

Well i can only speak for the German audience. But dubbing is normal here. EVERY film is getting dubbed.

Why?
First of all, reading during a film is getting annyoing after a few minutes. You cannot fully embrace the visuals on screen, because you have to concentrate on the Text.
Furthermore subtitles are always poorly translated, because the ear gets the dialogue faster then the eye the subtitled text. Hence, the subtitles are always shortened version of the dialogue thats actually spoken.
Dubbing is closely to the original version, and if something is out of synch, i can live with that.
BTW, i grew up watching german dubs. I have no problem with that

59. Exverlobter - March 21, 2013

This is like Trek sounds in German.
This is a homage video to the recently deceased german voice-actor of Patrick Stewart .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUvqjR9F4T0

60. Keachick - March 21, 2013

I was just wondering if dubbing might be a problem for some people. It has been for me.

Anyway, hopefully, however STID is presented to a non-English speaking audiences (subtitles or dubbing), I just hope they will give the movie a go, enjoy and tell their friends…

61. AJ - March 22, 2013

anya:

Thanks for correcting the “Germanic” generalization of both Chekovs’ accents. I know that the Germans have a vodka called “Gorbatchow” which I assume is pronounced the same way as the USSR’s last General Secretary’s surname.

Beyond that, Western Ukraine hews closer to its own culture, whereas everything east of the Dniepr has historically related better to Russia. The Dnepropetrovsk political machine was a catapult for many of the Soviet leaders of old.

Keachick: Dubbing depends on the country. Across Scandinavia and Finland, English films are dubbed in cinemas and TV, as English is compulsory in school. Poland was sub-titling when I lived there a few years ago. The only exception is kids’ films (Shrek and Pixar films, etc) which usually hire famous national actors to assume the voices (and draw in the parents as well). When I watched ‘Trek’ in Austria, it was in German. In Italy, I saw STIV:TVH in Italian.

62. Keachick - March 22, 2013

I am a little confused. Is not dubbing a situation where you use a voice actor to replace the language spoken by the actor seen in the movie, as you showed me with your link to the German actor Rolf Schult who did Picard’s voice? I thought that subtitles were translations of the dialogue etc written at the bottom of the picture in the native language of the viewer.

If English is compulsory in so many European schools, surely using subtitles would be less expensive and simpler.

In my travel around Scandinavia and parts of central Europe, I was surprised at how well many of the Europeans spoke English…

63. Exverlobter - March 23, 2013

“In my travel around Scandinavia and parts of central Europe, I was surprised at how well many of the Europeans spoke English…”

That is true. But there is a big difference between a little small talk and watching a movie in a foreign language. I try to watch movies in English as much as possible, but mostly only when I’ve already seen it in German and know the plot. I remember watching The Dark Knight for the first time during a vacation in the USA and i understood only half of the plot. I had to watch it in Germany again, and only then fully could embrace this masterpiece of a film.

And furthermore cinema is for everyone, and still older people have big problems with English, as it was not that important in earlier decades as now. So you what exclude them from cinema.
And i already mentioned in my previous post that everyone hates subtitles, so yeah dubbing is the best alternative.

64. Keachick - March 23, 2013

I am not wanting to exclude anyone. I was just confirming the meaning of dubbing.

Deaf people depend on subtitles, unless they have learned to lipread. A family friend (87) is now profoundly deaf and can’t watch TV or DVDs without subtitles.

65. Exverlobter - March 23, 2013

” I was just confirming the meaning of dubbing.”

Dubbing is important in big markets. However it’s more expensive than subtitles so it is not worthwhile in smaller countries for example in Skandinavia.

“Deaf people depend on subtitles, unless they have learned to lipread. A family friend (87) is now profoundly deaf and can’t watch TV or DVDs without subtitles.”

That’s true deaf people are indeed in a way excluded from cinema.
But DVDs are for everyone. You can switch between the original/dubbing track and subtitles in almost every important language.

TrekMovie.com is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.