possibly the most unnecessary audio-description commentary in the episode last night. This is from Nightsleeper, a 6-part BBC thriller that started on Sunday.
@DerryLawlor I suppose in this case the wagon was on a train, so we need to know the train didn't explode but the wagon did. Just amuses me though. In general, the description's very useful I think. Love me a good TV drama!
I had no idea that the BBC logo is visible in the video here. I kinda assumed that, like the audio (discounting the descriptive track for the blind of course), the entire visual experience of a scene was diegetic, barring subtitles, onscreen text and so forth. #TodayILearned. #BlindProblems
@sarajw The wagon that exploded was on a train, so perhaps it'll be relevant if we see the same train later on. Without more description I don't know if the train is safe or not, but obviously can't see the visual to know if that was communicated to the rest of the audience.
Description often breaks atmosphere, particularly with jump scares in horror we find. It's necessary much of the time, but I do wish I could have it in my ear rather than mixed into the whole family audio feed that we share.
In that clip you posted - it looks like the gas wagons that exploded may have been on another train, which had just gone over the points of a junction - and was clipped by the speeding train where they're showing the interior with all the panicking people.
Mind you, that's from watching that very short clip several times now - not sure all that context would have been caught visually - depends what came before and after it...
@sarajw I admire the describers - it's incredibly hard to know what to comment on, particularly if you haven't seen the rest of an episode or something.
The most inessential and hence humorous bit of audio description I've encountered still goes to the movie Juno. Dog: Woof, woof. Cast member: Shut up! Pause. Audio describer: The dog does what it's told.
Derry Lawlor
in reply to Sean Randall • • •Sean Randall
in reply to Derry Lawlor • • •Just amuses me though. In general, the description's very useful I think. Love me a good TV drama!
Sean Randall
in reply to Sean Randall • • •I kinda assumed that, like the audio (discounting the descriptive track for the blind of course), the entire visual experience of a scene was diegetic, barring subtitles, onscreen text and so forth.
#TodayILearned. #BlindProblems
Sara Joy :happy_pepper:
in reply to Sean Randall • • •I've just learned a new word - diegetic. Thanks!
Was it obvious in context exactly which things had exploded though - were there other things in danger of going off?
I can imagine sometimes the audio description might get ahead of itself and sort of spoil tension - does that happen?
Sean Randall
in reply to Sara Joy :happy_pepper: • • •@sarajw The wagon that exploded was on a train, so perhaps it'll be relevant if we see the same train later on. Without more description I don't know if the train is safe or not, but obviously can't see the visual to know if that was communicated to the rest of the audience.
Description often breaks atmosphere, particularly with jump scares in horror we find. It's necessary much of the time, but I do wish I could have it in my ear rather than mixed into the whole family audio feed that we share.
Sara Joy :happy_pepper:
in reply to Sean Randall • • •In that clip you posted - it looks like the gas wagons that exploded may have been on another train, which had just gone over the points of a junction - and was clipped by the speeding train where they're showing the interior with all the panicking people.
Mind you, that's from watching that very short clip several times now - not sure all that context would have been caught visually - depends what came before and after it...
Sean Randall
in reply to Sara Joy :happy_pepper: • • •Sara Joy :happy_pepper:
in reply to Sean Randall • • •Sam Taylor
in reply to Sean Randall • • •Sean Randall reshared this.
Sean Randall
in reply to Sam Taylor • • •Grace King
in reply to Sean Randall • • •Sean Randall
in reply to Grace King • • •Andre Louis
in reply to Sean Randall • • •