Yes you keep repeating "better voices" but I don't quite believe you, I think it's just more comfortable for you to have dubbing instead of subtitles, because that's what you are used to.
Believe it or not, but the German voices
are better (in my opinion). Agnes' voice is more softer and Elin's voice more "rusty".
It seems really stupid that a lot of actors original voices should sound so bad or unfitting that the dubbed voices are "better"?
I didn't say that the original voices are bad or unfitting. I just said, in comparison to the original, that the dubbed voices are better.
There are some movies/series where this happens, f.e. Angela Anaconda or Spencer/Hill films. On the other hand there are also films where the original voice is better than the dubbing, f.e. the voice of Jean Reno in "Leon the Professional".
And as far as I know, don't the people doing the dubbing try to find similar voices to match the original?
True. Nevertheless the dubbing voice might be better.
I think you just prefer hearing your own language, otherwise it feels too strange for you.
Not really. It's more how the voice sounds. How the dubbing actors pronounce/emphase the words. An excellent dubbing can push a movie a lot.
And these dubbing-actors, don't you finally recognise their voices for different foreign actors? Because there can't be new ones all the time?
These are professional artist. They can do a lot of different dialects/parts with their voices. And Germany has many of them.
"Hmm, I've heard that voice before." Does this ever happen?
Yes, sometimes this happens. F.e. I thought the speaker of Agnes is the same as Mathilda in "Leon the Professional". But I've checked it and both characters were spoken by different speakers.
I don't see any difference between the terms "content" and "meaning" for our purposes.
Well, "same content" means that the translation is nearly 1:1. "same meaning" means that translation is more free, but keeps the general statement. That's my interpretation.
I'd just donwright deny that "you are so bloody stupid" and "du hast den Horizont einer kniienden Ameise" have the same meaning.
I don't agree. For me it has the same meaning.
Meaning is not only a matter of what is said, but also of the way it is expressed. There are hundreds of possible expressions of the simple fact that somebody is stupid, all very different, but each and every one has a special nuance and a special hue, and each and every one tells something about the person who uses it - about his or her cultural and social background, emotions, and so on. Choice of words is crucial for meaning. Therefore, as I see it, exchanging a sentence which expresses "you are stupid" in very straightforward, everyday words, for a sentence which expresses "you are stupid" with a more or less funny, unusual and elaborated one-liner, changes the meaning. That is bad translation, when done without need. In the scene we're talking about, there's no need to do it. Neither of the reasons you cite applies.
I guess it's pretty clear that we have a different points of view about that. Maybe it is, because I'm not a friend of straigthforward expressions.
You can't be serious about this. Translators are not authors. The right of artistic freedom doesn't apply to them - not as long as they call themselves "translators" and the work they do is sold under the name of the original author.
Are you kidding? Of course artistic freedom apply to them. Even if they are "only" translators. Just think of Dr. Erika Fuchs (she translated nearly all Disney comics to German from 1951 on) or Dana Lewis and Toren Smith (they did the excellent translation of Gunsmith Cats from Japanese to English). I don't want to know how the translations would have been without their use of artistic freedom.
When I read a German book with "Dostojewski" printed on the cover (as I must, because I don't speak Russian), I want to rely on the general assumption that the translator did his or her best to be true to the original text. It's Dostojewski I want to read, not "Dostojewski as putatively improved by the artistic standards of Mr. X, his so-called translator", and possibly with a different ending, as you suggest. The same goes for films: Even though I have to rely on subtitles, when it says "written by Lukas Moodysson", it's a Moodysson script I want to see, not something that used to be a Moodysson script until some anonymous people put their hands on it because of they think "what works". Following this logic, you could just go on into the Louvre and "improve" on some of the Picassos there, 'cause, you know, they really don't work, that guy couldn't even paint decent faces...
Well, again, if the result is better. See "The Tall Blond Man with One Black Shoe". A book/film/whatever has to entertain me. So I don't care if it's close to the original or not a s long as it's good. But that's my opinion. I know that most of the people here don't agree to that. Such is life.
Seems to be one thing we do agree on!
Looks like that.