Those who were hailed as the Iwo Jima heroes were indeed heroes (the battle resulted in 29 Medals of Honor), but in the film they tend to be unresponsive to such praise; they cannot forget the dead friends left behind. The intensity of the battle can scarcely be imagined. The Marines suffered one-third of all their World Two combat deaths on the tiny speck in the Pacific, and almost all the 22,000 entrenched Japanese died, some by their own hands.
Heroes (2006) Subtitles
The men who raised the flag were hailed as heroes, but who precisely were they? No faces were visible. Nor were those who raised the first flag credited, because the official story was that there was only one event. The men themselves knew who they were, and were not, but no one really wanted to know the truth; three of them were later killed, and three others were brought home to headline a national tour to sell U. S. Bonds.
Technological advances have made subtitles more palatable. As more theaters offer stadium seating, the old problem of the moviegoer in front of you blocking your view of the subtitles is eliminated. Filmmakers also are adopting an array of typefaces and colors that make subtitles easier to read; gone are the old days when shaky white lettering disappeared altogether whenever the color white dominated a scene.
The Subs also established an "Auxiliary" which, ironically, was reserved for heroes they deemed unprepared for missions. (DC Comics Presents #59) These included Antennae Boy, who received radio waves from the past or present with his super-ears with antennae on them. He was rejected because he could not control this and the sound was often deafening. (Adventure Comics #305) And Double-Header was a boy with two heads atop one body. They tended to argue among themselves. (#323)
When half the Legion's was thrust into the 20th Century by the Emerald Eye, the team held a massive applicant screening. Other noticeable heroes (most unnamed, codenames are assumed) at the tryouts were:
Many rejected applicants sought solace with other teams including the Workforce. Several, however, decided they were not yet ready for action, and formed their own group: the Legion of Substitute Heroes. Only Polar Boy and Night Girl were fully shown as members. (Legionnaires #49) NOTE: The latter five heroes were named in the Legion Secret Files #1.
After this, Chlorophyll Kid, Color Kid, Infectious Lass and Night Girl were inexplicably depicted as part of a group of small children -- all aspiring young heroes being led on a tour by Chuck Taine. The kids encountered four Legionnaires who related their origin stories. Antennae Boy and Porcupine Pete were also a part of this group of children. (Legends of the Legion #1-4)
A group of rejects (Porcupine Pete, Chlorophyll Kid, Stone Boy, Color Kid and Infectious Lass) banded together to secretly help the Legion. They confronted the villain Starfinger who unleashed monsteres into Earth's ionosphere. The rejects wrestled Starfinger's glove away from him. The Legion apologized to the rejected heroes and they named themselves the Legion of Substitute Heroes; they vowed to support the Legion.
The prevalence of the six-seconds rule may be rooted in the belief that fast subtitle speeds will not allow viewers to follow both the subtitles and the on-screen action [3]. However, how much time do viewers actually spend reading subtitles and watching the images? This can be assessed using the concepts of absolute reading time and proportional reading time [15]. Absolute reading time is measured in seconds and it is the actual time spent on reading the subtitle. For instance, a viewer can spend 4 seconds reading a subtitle displayed for 6 seconds, which leaves them 2 seconds to follow the on-screen action in the film. Proportional reading time is measured in percentages and is the proportion of the total subtitle display time during which the viewer is actually gazing at the subtitle. Thus, if a reader looks at the 6-second-subtitle for 4 seconds, their proportional reading time is 66%. Longer subtitle display times have been found to increase the absolute reading time but decrease the proportional reading time [15, 16]. On the one hand, this finding may suggest that longer subtitle display times can benefit viewers by giving them more time to follow the on-screen action. On the other hand, however, it is plausible that when faced with fast subtitles, viewers simply read them more efficiently and, ultimately, do not need longer display times.
When it comes to the differences between the videos in a language that is familiar (English in Exp. 2) and unfamiliar (Hungarian in Exp. 1) to viewers, we hypothesized that because people support their viewing with auditory information from the soundtrack, the preference for faster speeds and unreduced text may be more discernible when they understand the language of the film dialogue, whereas it may be less pronounced in the case of a language that viewers have no knowledge of. Furthermore, the analysis between different groups of subjects (Spanish, Polish and English) enabled us to consider the impact of experience with subtitling on the processing of subtitled videos. We expected that people who are familiar with subtitling may have developed certain strategies allowing them to process subtitles more efficiently, possibly evidenced by higher comprehension and lower cognitive load.
Despite our expectations prior to the study and the linguistic background of the participants, when asked about the preferred type of audiovisual translation, the vast majority stated they prefer subtitling. This, on the one hand, may reflect changes in audiovisual translation landscape, and on the other may be attributed to the fact that the participants were living in the UK at the time the study was carried out. Finally, the preference for a given type of translation is not synonymous with its prevalence in a country; this is to say that although some participants may prefer subtitles now, they still grew up in a non-subtitling country.
Subtitle speed had an effect on all eye tracking measures (Table 10). There were no interactions. Slower subtitles induced more fixations and higher mean fixation duration than faster subtitles. The absolute reading time was longest in the 12 cps condition, whereas the proportional reading time was highest in the 20 cps condition. Fig 1A shows that an increase in subtitle speeds resulted in an increase in the percentage of time spent in the subtitle area, relative to subtitle duration. Subtitles in the slowest condition (12 cps) triggered the largest number of revisits, which may mean that participants read the subtitle, looked at the scene and gazed back at the subtitle area, only to find the same subtitle there. We discovered a trend, depicted in Fig 1B, that the longer the subtitle duration, the more revisits to the subtitle area. When watching slow subtitles, viewers re-read two out of three subtitles, but when watching fast subtitles, they re-read about one in five.
We also found an interaction between speed and language in effort, F(2,71) = 6.935, p = .002, Îp2 = 163) and in frustration, F(2,71) = 4.658, p = .013, Îp2 = .116). We decomposed these interactions with simple effects with Bonferroni correction and found a main effect of subtitle speed on frustration in the English, F(1,26) = 16.980, p = .000, Îp2 = .395, and Spanish group, F(1,25) = 4.355, p = .047, Îp2 = .148. Frustration was lower in the 20 cps condition compared to 12 cps. For Polish speakers, there was a main effect of subtitle speed on effort, F(1,20) = 14.134, p = .001, Îp2 = .414 but not for frustration. Polish participants declared to expend more effort when reading faster subtitles displayed at 20 cps compared to the slow subtitles.
Similarly to Experiment 1, we found the main effect of subtitle speed on all eye tracking measures (see Table 18). The slow subtitles induced more fixations than the fast ones. In all groups of participants, the mean fixation duration was lower in the 20 cps condition. Absolute reading time for the 20 cps condition was lower than the 12 cps condition. Proportional reading time, however, was higher for faster subtitles.
The implication of the number of revisits to the subtitle area for the subtitle reading process is that when watching slow subtitles, viewers re-read every second subtitle, whereas in the case of the fast subtitles, only one in five or one in six was re-read. This may be taken to mean that slow subtitles resulted in a more disrupted reading process.
We also found a main effect of language in all eye tracking measures except for revisits (see Table 19). Spanish people made significantly more fixations on subtitles than English people, p = .001, 95% CI [.31, 1.46], and had a significantly longer mean fixation duration than Polish people, p = .025, 95% CI [2.73, 52.20]. They also dwelled the longest in the subtitle, as shown by their longest absolute reading time compared to the English, p = .007, 95% CI [49.88, 389.01] and to the Polish, p = .006, 95% CI [57.46, 413.62]. Their proportional reading time was longer than analogous time spent by English, p = .002, 95% CI [.03, .17] and Polish participants, p = .005, 95% CI [.02, .17], see Fig 6.
The fact that slower subtitles did not result in higher comprehension may be somewhat surprising but possibly suggests that viewers can cope well with reading subtitles irrespective of their speed. Our results are consistent with the prior work on SDH, which showed that slow edited subtitles did not result in higher comprehension than fast unreduced subtitles [6, 36].
It seems everyone needs subtitles nowadays in order to "hear" the television. This is something that has become more common over the past decade and it's caused people to question if their hearing is going bad or if perhaps actors have gotten lazy with enunciation.
So if you've been wondering if it's just you who needs subtitles in order to watch the latest marathon-worthy show, worry no more. Vox video producer Edward Vega interviewed dialogue editor Austin Olivia Kendrick to get to the bottom of why we can't seem to make out what the actors are saying anymore. It turns out it's technology's fault, and to get to how we got here, Vega and Kendrick took us back in time.
38c6e68cf9