Refering to the Japanese version as a "dub"

[successoroffate]

So, I've seen this discussion a few times, so I thought it was time we found an answer. Should we refer to the Japanese version as a "dub"? First off, here is the Merriam-Webster Dictionary's definition of "dub":

1: to add (sound effects or new dialogue) to a film or to a radio or television production —usually used with in
2: to provide (a motion-picture film) with a new sound track and especially dialogue in a different language
3: to make a new recording of (sound or videotape already recorded); also : to mix (recorded sound or videotape from different sources) into a single recording

Personally, I think that the Japanese version should be referred to as such - the Japanese version, since a "dub" is described as essentially giving a film or television production a new sound track. If the Japanese voices were re-recorded today, I would define that as a "dub". But what do you think?

All 3 definitions support the notion that the Japanese original is not a dub. They didn't add any sound effects or new dialogue to the show, the show already had it. It's an original score, not a new one. There was nothing before, so saying it's new implies there was something made before that was removed.

[Tzigi]

All 3 definitions support the notion that the Japanese original is not a dub. They didn't add any sound effects or new dialogue to the show, the show already had it. It's an original score, not a new one. There was nothing before, so saying it's new implies there was something made before that was removed.

Well that's the problem. It's like saying that a new car is a car created by taking a car and adding new pieces or that the Winds of Winter that G.R.R. Martin is writing now is not a new book.
The Japanese version added all the sound effects and all the dialogue - the sequence of pictures aka the animation didn't have any sound whatsoever in itself. An original score equals a new (As in 'newly created') score. An original score isn't a localized score and that's the problem here. But the process is in its basics the same: one takes an animation and adds sound - music, sound effects and voices. Each iteration of this is 'dubbing'. The Japanese dubbed Dragon Ball (then an animation without any sound) and then it was localized - either via dubbing or via voice-over (leaving either the original Japanese dubbing or some later localized dubbing beneath the voice-over).

[ABED]

The first definition does fit what the JPN version does.

[Footlong Shoe]

(And if you want to get REALLY pedantic, a lot of anime gets recorded before the visuals are finished being animated... Dragon Ball included.)

To be fair, most animation in general is done that way. It's probably a lot more common in other countries, when they animate the mouths to actually look like they're forming words, as opposed to just flaps. (Not trying to rip on anime, just clarifying)

[ABED]

It's also smarter as the animators can tailor the animation to the performance, like they did with Mark Hamill's The Joker.

[successoroffate]

The first definition does fit what the JPN version does.

But it does not say that the film, TV or radio production is missing the dialogue nor the sound effects.

[successoroffate]

All 3 definitions support the notion that the Japanese original is not a dub. They didn't add any sound effects or new dialogue to the show, the show already had it. It's an original score, not a new one. There was nothing before, so saying it's new implies there was something made before that was removed.

Well that's the problem. It's like saying that a new car is a car created by taking a car and adding new pieces or that the Winds of Winter that G.R.R. Martin is writing now is not a new book.
The Japanese version added all the sound effects and all the dialogue - the sequence of pictures aka the animation didn't have any sound whatsoever in itself. An original score equals a new (As in 'newly created') score. An original score isn't a localized score and that's the problem here. But the process is in its basics the same: one takes an animation and adds sound - music, sound effects and voices. Each iteration of this is 'dubbing'. The Japanese dubbed Dragon Ball (then an animation without any sound) and then it was localized - either via dubbing or via voice-over (leaving either the original Japanese dubbing or some later localized dubbing beneath the voice-over).

Well, I just looked up the Spanish meaning or definition of the word "Dub" from the same dictionary and this is what I got:

" doblar (una película), mezclar (una grabación)"

The word "doblar" can be translated to Dubbing and the full sentence (just the first part cause the second part just says mixing a tape or a recording) reads "dubbing a movie." People say in spanish " FOX esta doblando al espanol la pelicula Fukkatsu no F" Which in English translates to: "FOX is dubbing the Fukkatsu no F movie to English"
The way I see it, when talking about Dubbing I believe your putting something on top of another to take it completely out. My case, I grew up with the Latinamerican dub and it makes sense to call it a dub because it's not the original. The original Japanese fits more into production itself of a show but not dubbing.

They are not dubbing anything in the original. (Ellos no estan doblando nada en el original). The original is the one getting dubbed.

[garfield15]

I have literally never seen this issue in any anime except with Dragon Ball.

Like if you said "The Naruto Japanese dub" or "The Attack on Titan japanese dub" or honestly any anime, you'd be laughed out of the discussion

[ABED]

The first definition does fit what the JPN version does.

But it does not say that the film, TV or radio production is missing the dialogue nor the sound effects.

But it is. Until the track is created, it's missing the track.

[B]

I don't understand the discussion. According to that first definition in the opening post, Japanese Dragon Ball(and virtually every other anime) is a dub. The Simpsons or any other Western cartoon is not a dub because the animation is created to the voices, where as anime(and thus Dragon Ball) is animated first and then the Japanese cast comes in and records. I had no idea there were English dub fans snidely calling the Japanese version a "dub" to legitimize what they like. If that is happening, that sounds incredibly idiotic to me. That's not an insult or anything of the sort, that's just... stating a thing.

Of course, in casual conversation, you'd never call it a dub, just like you'd never see your neighbor walking their dog down the street and yell, "Hey! Nice canis lupus familiaris you got there!"

[UltimateHammerBro]

Well, I just looked up the Spanish meaning or definition of the word "Dub" from the same dictionary and this is what I got:

" doblar (una película), mezclar (una grabación)"

The word "doblar" can be translated to Dubbing and the full sentence (just the first part cause the second part just says mixing a tape or a recording) reads "dubbing a movie." People say in spanish " FOX esta doblando al espanol la pelicula Fukkatsu no F" Which in English translates to: "FOX is dubbing the Fukkatsu no F movie to English"
The way I see it, when talking about Dubbing I believe your putting something on top of another to take it completely out. My case, I grew up with the Latinamerican dub and it makes sense to call it a dub because it's not the original. The original Japanese fits more into production itself of a show but not dubbing.

They are not dubbing anything in the original. (Ellos no estan doblando nada en el original). The original is the one getting dubbed.

Have a look at my post in the previous page: I explained why the Spanish word doblaje refers to what you're talking about, while the English dubbing may not necessarily mean the same thing.

[successoroffate]

Well, I just looked up the Spanish meaning or definition of the word "Dub" from the same dictionary and this is what I got:

" doblar (una película), mezclar (una grabación)"

The word "doblar" can be translated to Dubbing and the full sentence (just the first part cause the second part just says mixing a tape or a recording) reads "dubbing a movie." People say in spanish " FOX esta doblando al espanol la pelicula Fukkatsu no F" Which in English translates to: "FOX is dubbing the Fukkatsu no F movie to English"
The way I see it, when talking about Dubbing I believe your putting something on top of another to take it completely out. My case, I grew up with the Latinamerican dub and it makes sense to call it a dub because it's not the original. The original Japanese fits more into production itself of a show but not dubbing.

They are not dubbing anything in the original. (Ellos no estan doblando nada en el original). The original is the one getting dubbed.

Have a look at my post in the previous page: I explained why the Spanish word doblaje refers to what you're talking about, while the English dubbing may not necessarily mean the same thing.

Can't find it...If the word has a different meaning then it kinda explains why someone would use the word dub even for the original. But still, not sure if they have different meanings.

Edit: Just found it. You are right but the first definition says adding sound effects to a tv or film production but it does not say if such production has none at all. If it doesn't have anything, and you are adding from scratch then it make sense to call the japanese a dub as well. However, the definition doesn't say it and the word New dialogues does not help the argument either.

[TripleRach]

One other example I meant to throw out earlier is that when an anime DVD only has the Japanese audio with subtitles, it's generally considered to be lacking a dub, or "sub only."

On that note, people spoke about Plan to Eradicate the Super Saiyans having "no dub" because it was released with only Japanese audio on international versions of Raging Blast 2. People also talk about waiting for recent material like BOG, RF, and Super to "get a dub" when they aren't interested in watching it in Japanese.

Just wanted to add that it can actually depend on the original language and culture of the person who is writing. I'm Polish and for me it was a huge surprise to learn that calling the original Japanese audio of an anime (be it Dragon Ball or any other series) a 'dub' can have any subjective connotations rather then simply describing the fact that it was produced via the action of... dubbing i.e. providing distinct voices for cartoon characters. Maybe it's so because in Poland we have three options of adapting something to our language:
1. voiceover i.e. lektor (one person reading all the texts over the original version)
2. subtitles
3. dubbing.
And you get things written like: "Polish voiceover on top of the original Japanese dubbing" and it will be perfectly legitimate. TripleRach wrote that "nobody really calls the original audio for any TV series or movie a "dub."" and that's a half-truth when it comes to Poland - it would depend on whether the TV series/movie has actors in it or is animated/computer-generated/otherwise doesn't feature humans speaking (an actor movie in its original form isn't dubbed, a cartoon, even a Polish cartoon drawn, animated and voiced in Poland is dubbed because that's what the process' name is). Even in one movie you can get both actors and dubbing: Treebeard in The Lord of the Rings is referred to as being dubbed by John Rhys-Davies and yet the English version provided by this actor is the original one.

Well, I'm only really qualified to speak about what's common among native English speakers, and mainly just American English at that. I didn't mean to discount the possibility that the terminology is different elsewhere.

It's interesting that you bring up live-action movies, because the terminology does get more complicated there. In some older movies and TV shows, audio was not recorded during filming on the set to save costs, and the actors would have to re-perform their dialogue in a studio later to match their own faces. The overall process could be called "dubbing in audio."

You also have situations like the older James Bond movies. Some actors had their own voice in the final soundtrack, like Sean Connery. But others like Ursula Andress or Gert Fröbe were ultimately voiced by replacement actors. You might call that "dubbing over" Andress and Fröbe.

There are also situations where the audio recorded on set for some lines is unusable due to some error, so an actor will have to come back and perform those lines again in a studio. Or in Western animation where the voices are recorded first, an actor may have to come back and re-record some lines later after the animation is complete. Those situations could be called "dubbing" too.

And then there are things like Treebeard, where a costumed or CG character was intended to have their dialogue recorded later. You might call that "dubbing in" if the character was silent or nonexistent on the set, or "dubbing over" if a stuntman or double had recorded temporary audio on the set.

In Star Wars, Anthony Daniels both wore the C3PO costume and voiced the character, while Darth Vader had a separate suit actor (David Prowse) and voice actor (James Earl Jones). Vader's voice might be called "dubbing," but C3PO probably wouldn't, depending on how or when it was recorded (I'm not sure offhand).

I suppose the gist of my rambling examples it that "dub" as a verb tends to only refer to adding or replacing something in live-action, and there are similar ideas for the original audio of an animated production. Of course, I should note that I'm mostly just speaking as a layman, and I'm no expert on film industry terminology.

[Herms]

I have literally never seen this issue in any anime except with Dragon Ball.

Like if you said "The Naruto Japanese dub" or "The Attack on Titan japanese dub" or honestly any anime, you'd be laughed out of the discussion

That's my impression too. I guess it's just another way DB is special...

One other example I meant to throw out earlier is that when an anime DVD only has the Japanese audio with subtitles, it's generally considered to be lacking a dub, or "sub only."

Funi or some other company should take advantage of this "Japanese dub" thing and start advertising all their releases as having "two dubs for the price of one".

OK, maybe not.

[JulieYBM]

It's also smarter as the animators can tailor the animation to the performance, like they did with Mark Hamill's The Joker.

Not really 'smarter'. Why should the entire movie production bend over backwards for the actors? Having the voice actors have to work for the animators makes much more sense, both from a time-saving stand point and an artistic stand-point.

[dario03]

I usually say version (Japanese version, English version, funi version, etc) but sometimes I'll say dub. Seems fine to me, I'm not not trying to prove anything or downplay the Japanese version.

It's also smarter as the animators can tailor the animation to the performance, like they did with Mark Hamill's The Joker.

Not really 'smarter'. Why should the entire movie production bend over backwards for the actors? Having the voice actors have to work for the animators makes much more sense, both from a time-saving stand point and an artistic stand-point.

Depends on what you are going for. They both have their ups and downs.

[ABED]

It's also smarter as the animators can tailor the animation to the performance, like they did with Mark Hamill's The Joker.

Not really 'smarter'. Why should the entire movie production bend over backwards for the actors? Having the voice actors have to work for the animators makes much more sense, both from a time-saving stand point and an artistic stand-point.

It's not bending over backwards, the performance is going to carry the show. Why should a performance suffer just so he can match the animation? What if he feels the line should have more energy, or should be more subdued? Tough noogies since he's locked into matching to the animation. And this is hardly bending over backwards. I don't even know where you got that idea from. And it makes less sense for the actors to match the animation.

[Gaffer Tape]

In Star Wars, Anthony Daniels both wore the C3PO costume and voiced the character, while Darth Vader had a separate suit actor (David Prowse) and voice actor (James Earl Jones). Vader's voice might be called "dubbing," but C3PO probably wouldn't, depending on how or when it was recorded (I'm not sure offhand).

I can pretty much guarantee that Daniels's lines were re-recorded. With a plastic helmet over his face, there is absolutely no way any of C3PO's live reads would have been useable. And that would really fall under the category of ADR (automated dialogue replacement), otherwise known as "looping." Incidentally, originally they were planning to go the Darth Vader route with him too, having another actor come in and be the voice.

[UltimateHammerBro]

It's also smarter as the animators can tailor the animation to the performance, like they did with Mark Hamill's The Joker.

Not really 'smarter'. Why should the entire movie production bend over backwards for the actors? Having the voice actors have to work for the animators makes much more sense, both from a time-saving stand point and an artistic stand-point.

Depends on what you are going for. They both have their ups and downs.

IMO, pre-lay (voice acting first, animation later) makes a lot more sense and gets better results, even from actors who aren't regular voice actors.
The actors have more freedom in their performances, and the animation feels better suited to the voices. Plus, you can actually animate mouths and not just lip flaps, and lip-synching is more accurate: the original Japanese version of Dragon Ball had issues with these two things.

It's not bending over backwards, the performance is going to carry the show. Why should a performance suffer just so he can match the animation? What if he feels the line should have more energy, or should be more subdued? Tough noogies since he's locked into matching to the animation. And this is hardly bending over backwards. I don't even know where you got that idea from. And it makes less sense for the actors to match the animation.

That was sadly obvious with Joji Yanami's Kaio in Super. Just compare his movements (particularly, how much his mouth moves while screaming) with his voice.

[ABED]

the original Japanese version of Dragon Ball had issues with these two things.

Is it me or does the American version make it a point to match the mouth flaps much moreso than the Japanese do?