Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Please don’t let anyone Americanise it (1992)

news.lettersofnote.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 326 posts

Re: Please don’t let anyone Americanise it (1992)

#51

Post by jonpurdy »

CalRobert wrote: post #5

There's a deeply frustrating infantilisation when something is localized in the same language. My kids and I love Bluey, an Australian show, but apparently the producers had to refuse to have it redone with US and UK accents to stop it happening. Never understood what the problem with having David Attenborough instead of Sigourney Weaver narrate Planet Earth was either.

Discovered Bluey and use it as a treat/distraction when needed with my 10-month-old. I legitimately enjoy watching it and love the subtle jokes made for parents. A big part of the charm is the Australianisms.

We don't need more Americanized stuff. If anything it should be the reverse: USA needs more international content, accents, etc.

Re: Please don’t let anyone Americanise it (1992)

#52

Post by Intermernet »

Joeboy wrote: post #41
CalRobert wrote: post #5

There's a deeply frustrating infantilisation when something is localized in the same language. My kids and I love Bluey, an Australian show, but apparently the producers had to refuse to have it redone with US and UK accents to stop it happening. Never understood what the problem with having David Attenborough instead of Sigourney Weaver narrate Planet Earth was either.

I guess David Attenborough probably isn't so well-known in the US? It's apparently much harder to get people to show up for something without a big name attached. Edit: > Actress and conservationist Sigourney Weaver was brought in to replace David Attenborough as narrator, as it was thought her familiarity to American audiences would attract more viewers.[0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet_Earth_(2006_TV_ser…

David Attenborough is by far the most famous nature documentarist in the world. No one comes close. I'm not sure what name would be regarded as bigger.

Re: Please don’t let anyone Americanise it (1992)

#53

Post by dymk »

Intermernet wrote: post #52
Joeboy wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess David Attenborough probably isn't so well-known in the US? It's apparently much harder to get people to show up for something without a big name attached. Edit: > Actress and conservationist Sigourney Weaver was brought in to replace David Attenborough as narrator, as it was thought her familiarity to American audiences would attract more viewers.[0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet_Earth_(2006_TV_ser…

David Attenborough is by far the most famous nature documentarist in the world. No one comes close. I'm not sure what name would be regarded as bigger.

Morgan Freeman as a runner up

Re: Please don’t let anyone Americanise it (1992)

#54

Post by Intermernet »

vrc wrote: post #33
emiliobumachar wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that analogue watches demonstrate the continuous nature of time. They tick . That's discretizing time. Sure you can omit the seconds hand or even make it run smoothly, and some do, but that's not reflective of the nature of the timepiece. You could just as well make a digital clock that fades out the unit seconds digit as the new one fades in. Or show digits until a blurby hundredth of a second, which s…

That’s why the continuous motion ones are so sought after and pricy. The mechanical continuous motion watches are really marvelous feats of engineering

They're also (as far as I understand it) not actually continuous motion. They just have much smaller increments of movement than a single second.

Re: Please don’t let anyone Americanise it (1992)

#55

Post by dymk »

vrc wrote: post #33
emiliobumachar wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that analogue watches demonstrate the continuous nature of time. They tick . That's discretizing time. Sure you can omit the seconds hand or even make it run smoothly, and some do, but that's not reflective of the nature of the timepiece. You could just as well make a digital clock that fades out the unit seconds digit as the new one fades in. Or show digits until a blurby hundredth of a second, which s…

That’s why the continuous motion ones are so sought after and pricy. The mechanical continuous motion watches are really marvelous feats of engineering

The movement is still quantized if you look close enough.

Re: Please don’t let anyone Americanise it (1992)

#56

Post by technothrasher »

tombert wrote: post #46
technothrasher wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When my son was little we used to watch "Bob the Builder" together, but apparently the producers didn't feel the same as the Bluey ones or didn't have as much sway. Our local station switched to a dubbed version with American accents and it was just awful and pointless. So now they say "soccer" instead of "football", so what? It lost most of its charm.

Honest question: how did it lose charm by switching to American accents and localisms? I'm not disagreeing (I'm a bit too old for Bob the Builder and I don't have kids), I'm genuinely curious.

I think it was mostly because we were used to the voice actors they had been using. The new ones just didn't fit the characters as well. I'm not sure it was an American vs British thing, I think it was more likely 1) you like what you were introduced to, and 2) they hired less qualified voice actors and re-writers to do the cheap dubbing than they originally did when they cast the show.

Re: Please don’t let anyone Americanise it (1992)

#57

Post by Intermernet »

tallanvor wrote: post #49
sillyquiet wrote: post #15

e.g., Philosopher's stone -> sorcerer's stone. Science-fiction and fantasy UK book covers were better too, which is another example of the same weird parochialism of the U.S. publishing industry as it was. My probably unpopular opinion is that it's a reflection of a more general, largely un-self-aware New York City parochialism, which was where most of the big publishing firms were based, at least until the last deca…

Eh, it's something people sort of laugh about now, but in 1998 it was probably the right choice to change it to sorcerer. It made it much clearer to children (and adults, to be honest), that it was a book about magic. And 1998 was still a time when many families didn't have internet access, so you were more likely to run into it at the bookstore or library, so the title needed to be more descriptive.

Yeah, but it sold just fine with the original title in all other markets. If I were from the US I'd be offended that the publishers decided to dumb it down. That's literally an insult to the society.

Re: Please don’t let anyone Americanise it (1992)

#59

Post by hotpotamus »

worker_person wrote: post #19
boesboes wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm 37 and have a hard time parsing clock faces, I remember having a hard time with it in kindergarten and they basicaly wrote it of as me being a little prick and refusing to do it right

Same. I can do it. But not fast.

Do you where one strapped to your body at all times? If you did, I bet you'd find it more intuitive.
Post reply on HN