English dubbed version vs. English subtitles.

I can't say anything about this, since I don't speak Swedish, but, as a translator, I can tell you that the subtitle's length is not a good indication of the translation's quality. When dealing with subtitles, a good translator makes an effort to word everything as succinctly as possible while retaining the meaning. In my experience, it's more likely that the lengthier subtitle/dub is the inferior one, but again, I don't speak Swedish so I don't know if that's the case here.

People who watch dubbed movies have no right to discuss cinema at all.

"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect." - Mark Twain

I've tried watching the dubbed version more than once and always received the impression that something was missing. I'll not attempt it again. I'd prefer a dubbed version as it is frustrating to have to read the words and miss the action of the film. That might not be the case in a theater but subtitled films don't play well on a 19" television.

I find the subtitled version to be much more satisfying than the dubbed version. For one there are a few lines that must have been considered too racy for 1950s American sensibilities. Also, the dub is very American in that much of the subtle black humor, that is in the lines and can be heard in the inflections of the original actors, seems to be transposed as tough guy posturing. I see Jons more as a Die Hard 1 type character ( laughing at death while scared, but capable), while the dub plays more like a Charles Bronson, humorless type. Just my opinion, I could be wrong.

hi. I do understand swedish (or rather danish natively, but if you master one skandinavian language, you understand them all). My version was subtitled (original english subtitles), and I can say that the subtitles don't always match up to what's spoken. Some lines are simply not translated at all. Others are translated good, but not completely accurate. For instance, when they talk about the child becoming an actor, the mother answers "jeg ved det ikke", which would be "(that) I don't know" - but the subtitles said "perhaps".

all in all, the translated subtitles were alright and didn't take away from the story, though not always completely accurate.

I also prefer subtitles, for the obvious reason: I want to hear the intended inflection of the dialogue, as decided upon by the actors and director. However, if I am deeply impressed by a foreign language film, and an English dub track is available, I'll often revisit it with the dubbed soundtrack enabled so I can study the nuances of the performances, which sometimes go unnoticed when reading subtitles. It's the price I have to pay for not understanding the foreign language in question, I guess.

Incidentally, I'm just another lazy, stupid American.

I agree subtitles are almost always preferable to dubbed voices - they do all seem to have a strange unreal quality along with extra 'ahhh' and 'hmmmm' moments that never seem lifelike.

There are one or two exceptions. The most obvious is a bit bizarre; FITZCARRALDO was released in German and a 'dubbed' version was later issued in English. But look at the actor's mouths. They mostly(not all) speak English. The whole thing was shot without sound and English was the closest to a mutual language the very culturally-diverse cast possessed. The result is quite odd.

I first watched a subtitled version with German voices that didn't match the mouths and that was very odd. Later I found the English 'dub' where some of the voices have that unreal sound but mostly do match the mouths and that one is far better. I guess this is a peculiar one-off.

I lived in Italy for a year and they dub everything. The problem then is that sometimes the voice actors are very good and can mask a bad actor, for instance my Italian friends thought Keanu Reeves was a great actor 😂

I think it is important to hear the original actors. For instance Max Von Sydow's performance wouldn't be the same without that wonderful deep intense voice.