No info about film in thread: mildy infuriating.
It’s from Lollywood, you’ve probably never heard of it.
U haven’t seen that movie?
A quiet placeU have seen this one?
I cri evere tim
No. What’s that? It looks sad
I believe it’s called The Rural Juror
The… Rurrershurr?
No Rrrrrrewwrjerrr
They Turk er Jurrr.
The best days of my flerm…
This film would never work for second screen viewers because the characters would have to nonstop be saying “I’m being really quiet” or “we can’t make any noise, even loud breathing, or the monster will get us”.
I am conflicted here. On the one hand, I agree that subtitles would have been nice. On the other hand, I think folks with hearing disabilities get shut out of other content so much that I don’t think this somewhat solitary case makes it good mildly infuriating material. It’s most likely just an oversight. Much less likely a clever scheme to highlight ableism.
On the one hand
heh
I mean, by US law (back when analog TV was standard) all TV broadcasts had to include closed captions on scanline 23(?) for people with hearing disabilities. it was part of the vertical blanking interval so it didn’t interfere with the regularly visible broadcast. It is good to include subtitles for all dialogue, spoken in the local dialect, in a foreign dialect, and even the various sign languages. That’s isn’t to say that yes, I fully agree that differently abled people should be able to take part in the dialog and should have accommodations where needed.
Semi related, did you know American sign language is closer to French sign language than it is to British sign language?
Sometimes, and specifically on Amazon prime, if a show / movie has hard coded subs (for sign or other foreign languages) you will need to turn off the optional subtitle setting.
Of course then, when someone does speak out loud you won’t get your normal subs until you turn the setting back on. I used to put in a new complaint for each show that it happened on until i canned prime altogether and went back to pirating all their content.
Is that Jim from The Office!?
CIA Jim, yes
Didn’t he also play CIA Agent Jack Ryan?
I want there to be a film with both Tim and Jim sitting at a desk pulling reaction faces to camera at everything going on.
Who’s Tim?
Big reaction face guy.
That’s not going to work for me. I can’t read. Can they do a dub?
That’s called audio description, they do it for blind audiences.
My Dad is incredibly dyslexic, and it’s a legit issue for him.
Growing up, if a movie or TV show had subs we had to take turns reading it out loud for him. I still have to catch myself trying to do automatically it when we’re watching something with other people.
I grew up in a country where movies are rarely dubbed. I was reading the subtitles out loud for my siblings who couldn’t read yet for entire movies.
I read video game dialogue out loud for kids like a storybook. Also anime subs that have no official dub, it can get pretty silly
🫵🤏🤞🤞🤘☝️👍🤌👍🤞🤌🫱🫲🫷👉👐🫶🙌🫶🤛
Maybe you missed the point.
Yes but think about how diverse it is
DEI is a good thing, actually.
Its a bad thing, but it’s less bad than the thing it’s trying to solve. We should look forward to a scenario where DEI is obsolete.
Why do you think DEI is a bad thing?
Because it only makes sense because employers can’t be trusted to hire equitably. It is a thumb on the scales, and so is an injust act, but is currently necessary due to bad hiring practices.
Hopefully we can grow out of this and employers will just hire the best people for the job, regardless of personal circumstance.
You seem to think DEI is when employers have to meet a diversity quota, when in reality, it upholds laws stating employers can’t make any hiring decisions based on race or any other such demographic.
Oh I sure do look forward to the well-reasoned and deeply nuanced explanation you’re certain to get in response to that question.
Lol i was expecting something, too, but the answer is actually quite reasonable
It’s civil which was nice, but it’s also an argument that is (charitably) extremely poorly thought through. It’s just an appeal towards free-market regulation, which in an ideal world does work great but we have hundreds of years history (and the fact that I do not have a pet dragon) that establishes this is not an ideal world and it would not in fact work great.
It’s a good, optimistic, hope-for-the-future thought yes - but they’re using that to justify badmouthing DEI policies which is both incredibly counterproductive and pretty suspect.
Compared to good writing?
We aren’t helping anyone by shoehorning random diversity stuff into cheap ass media. Sure we might have 20 out of place same sex relationships but god forbid if they were to touch on difficult topics. The people at the top make wild choices and are then rewarded because is supports the executives ideas about “diversity.” In practice diversity is really just a marketing to make us forget about all the systemic problems in the world.
In what world are same-sex relationships not a difficult topic, because I would very much like to move there.
