The most obvious change that we have observed in the last three decades or so is the progressive shifting of AVT from the margins to the centre of the academic debate, in a rather rapid fashion and after somewhat sluggish beginnings. Although nobody doubts these days that AVT is part and parcel of the translation ecosystem, for many years it was snubbed by scholars more interested in literary artefacts and comparative literature, who thus considered AVT to be a case of adaptation and unworthy of serious academic attention. In essence, of course, practices like subtitling and dubbing are used to transfer a message in a source language into another message in a target language, which falls squarely under the traditional criterion for translation to be considered as such, i.e. the conversion of languages in an attempt to help people comprehend messages in idioms that they do not understand. From this perspective, AVT is not ontologically different from the translation of poetry, fiction, the Bible or the Quran, though it clearly adds a level of complexity that derives from its multimedia nature and whose investigation requires an interdisciplinary approach, including a good knowledge of the role played by technology. This is perhaps one of the reasons why interest in its study was lukewarm for so many years, for it was difficult to find the right probing angle and even to source the right material, such as dubbed/subtitled copies of films, dialogue lists, working documents with the duration of the subtitles and the like.