NZ has a non returnable dvd copyright law - due to ppl buying and then copying the dvd then returning it for $$ they've made a law...if you buy CDs or DVDS its nonreturnable....
its only replaceable - so not much point returning if another dvd is gonna have the same result
CC is different from subtitles. That much I do know.A subtitle file, with the extension srt, will play with the video if both files are in the same directory. Not sure how it works with power dvd. Since CC is something that is supposed to be optional, unlike subtitles when downloaded off the internet, just not sure how that works. I know that ripped dvds don't always include subs or CC.i use power dvd - and the subtitles work on all other dvds like lord of rings or tranformers etc or is CC another format thats seperate to subtitles / captions ???
NZ has a non returnable dvd copyright law - due to ppl buying and then copying the dvd then returning it for $$ they've made a law...if you buy CDs or DVDS its nonreturnable....
its only replaceable - so not much point returning if another dvd is gonna have the same result
I just watched this movie last night. I rented it from the local library. The main feature had CC, but the "bonus" footage was all non-captioned. Ticked me off a bit, but made sense since the film, despite the subject matter, is definitely intended for a hearing audience.
I was offended by the film, to tell you the truth. It made Deaf people look ignorant, closed-minded and unintelligent in many places. It also made CI's seem like amazing "cures" for deafness. It had very little background information about Deaf culture, which is necessary to provided a context for the anger and sentiments exhibited by the Deaf individuals in the film. There were many good parts, and certainly good questions were raised, but on the whole I felt it was a very biased film and definitely had an agenda.
I also watched the follow-up to the film: "Sound and Fury: 6 years later." That was interesting, in that it painted the Deaf family members in a much different light now that they had "accepted" CIs. Something that really clued me in to the intentions of the filmmakers was at the end of the movie, the COCHLEAR brand logo flash across the screen, which I took as meaning they sponsored the production costs. Money talks.
I am not anti-CI at all, but I am definitely anti-misrepresentation of facts and positions, and this movie was full of shit. If you are considering a CI, I don't think this movie will provide you with any useful information at all.
One of the family members is also an AD member. Maybe she will reply to your post.
I'd be very interested to see what she has to say!
http://www.alldeaf.com/sign-language-oralism/63648-oral-school.html
http://www.alldeaf.com/sign-language-oralism/64115-all-hearing-parents-deaf-kids.html
Start with these locked threads.
Then you can just read all the posts of a poster you are interested in.
doubletrouble is the person you are interested in.
I just watched this movie last night. I rented it from the local library. The main feature had CC, but the "bonus" footage was all non-captioned. Ticked me off a bit, but made sense since the film, despite the subject matter, is definitely intended for a hearing audience.
I was offended by the film, to tell you the truth. It made Deaf people look ignorant, closed-minded and unintelligent in many places. It also made CI's seem like amazing "cures" for deafness. It had very little background information about Deaf culture, which is necessary to provided a context for the anger and sentiments exhibited by the Deaf individuals in the film. There were many good parts, and certainly good questions were raised, but on the whole I felt it was a very biased film and definitely had an agenda.
I also watched the follow-up to the film: "Sound and Fury: 6 years later." That was interesting, in that it painted the Deaf family members in a much different light now that they had "accepted" CIs. Something that really clued me in to the intentions of the filmmakers was at the end of the movie, the COCHLEAR brand logo flash across the screen, which I took as meaning they sponsored the production costs. Money talks.
I am not anti-CI at all, but I am definitely anti-misrepresentation of facts and positions, and this movie was full of shit. If you are considering a CI, I don't think this movie will provide you with any useful information at all.