View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
|
Animegomaniac
Joined: 16 Feb 2012
Posts: 4082
|
Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2012 11:20 am
|
|
|
We've gone from credit order to this, amazing.
On credit order, my feelings are that dub actors should go first as the company paying for the dub should have precedence over the original. Even if the original Japanese producers would be against it. Of course, if they were against that, they would be against it being dubbed as well. But it's a business and everyone knows it or everyone should know it.
It's a simple truth: Advertising dubs pay for dubs. "These are our voices, writers, directors. If you like them, see also:" It also pays for the original Japanese version that should be included plus the subbed version that links them {spoiler alert to my second point!}.
But in sub only releases, the Japanese should come first rather than the production team that subbed the work. Many fansubs don't get the point here, for some reason. "Brought to you by, done by, timing by..." Yeah, yeah, you all are great...
On localization versus translation versus inserted title cards {we've come to that!}: Who cares? If you got new english words on the screen anywhere, it's not the original work. First a work gets translated then it gets localized. Even Japanese subs get localized otherwise you end up with all "object to subject" sentences; It's all very correct but it hardly "flows".
On name changes and editing footage: No comment? While it invalidates the original work usually making a complete release hard if not impossible, putting a dub that also has the original work included on the same level is idiotic.
Even if the dub has name changes. Even if the sub has name changes...
{There's a fix for that too: turn off the subs.}
|
Back to top |
|
|
Touma
Joined: 29 Aug 2007
Posts: 2651
Location: Colorado, USA
|
Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2012 11:20 am
|
|
|
504NOSON2 wrote: | As I stated earlier, there's a distinction between "translation" and "localization". By simply analyzing the word, one can easily determine this. Localizing something means producing a product that conforms to the local norms of a very specific audience. Translating is not. Localization is the second step of adapting a product in an attempt to make the product more accessible to said audience. A translation is just a general shift from a source language into a target language. Nothing localized about it. |
I disagree with that. I believe that translation is just one part of the localization process.
When somebody translates anime into English for the North American market he uses the meanings and spellings of the words that are commonly used in the USA, as opposed to those that are commonly used in Great Brittan, Australia, or any other locality where English is spoken.
But I do not think that you are wrong. You are just using a different definition. If you search for definitions of "localization" you can find one to support either argument.
The "correct" meaning of a word is determined by the context in which it is used, not just by a dictionary entry. As long as people understand the meaning of what you are saying quibbling over which definition to use is rather pointless.
I trimmed your quote to try to keep it as small as was practical. I apologize if the meaning was changed by taking it out of context.
|
Back to top |
|
|
DavidShallcross
Joined: 19 Feb 2008
Posts: 1008
|
Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2012 12:06 pm
|
|
|
DomonX2 wrote: | No, YOU'RE incorrect. I'm going to destroy this comment so bad, it's not even funny. Listen, kid, if anime was only Japanese, why was Tom and Jerry 85 on TV Asahi's list for being the top 100 "anime" of all time, if anime was only Japanese? Why was Toy Story 3 the best selling 'anime' in it's period?.... And the term 'anime' is French, not Japanese.
|
The language of this forum is English, not Japanese or French. Meanings of words in one language are only weak evidence for meanings of words in another language. The official ruling here is:
Quote: | According to Anime News Network editor-in-chief, Christopher Macdonald, "On Anime News Network, we define anime based on the origin of the animation. If it is primarily produced in Japan, it is anime. It should be clear, that by adhering to a definition that defines non-Japanese animation that mimic common anime styles as 'not anime,' Anime News Network does not endorse the notion that these 'pseudo-anime' are in any way inferior to animation produced in Japan. "
|
And it's disingenuous to complain, when people here are talking about anime using this definition, that they are incorrect because what say doesn't apply to another definition.
|
Back to top |
|
|
the Rancorous
Joined: 08 Feb 2006
Posts: 2248
Location: Hunting the Dragon in Gransys
|
Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2012 1:41 am
|
|
|
Crispy45 wrote: |
the Rancorous wrote: | And you seem to be the only one. |
I care too. How's it feel to be wrong, brah? |
And how does it feel to not be able to read properly? eh uhm... Brah?
I forgot about this topic, but man. It really became... something, didn't it?
|
Back to top |
|
|
Ryo Hazuki
Joined: 01 Jan 2008
Posts: 363
Location: Finland
|
Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2012 2:30 am
|
|
|
DomonX2 wrote: | [ And the term 'anime' is French, not Japanese.
|
The Japanese word 'anime' doesn't originate from the French phrase 'les desins animés' (animated drawings) but the English word 'animation', which is pronounced in Japan 'animeeshon' and was later shortened as 'anime'.
|
Back to top |
|
|
|