Forum - View topicNEWS: NTUSA Re-Writes Challenged by Columnist
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
darkhunter
 Posts: 2992 Location: Los Angelas |
|
|||||||
True, but from reading his review, I woudlnt' say it's a bad title, it's decent. NTUSA's rewrite made it look awful. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
Kazuki-san
 Posts: 2251 Location: Houston, TX |
|
|||||||
Sorry, I saw the if, but took the context incorrectly.
I'm not doubting him either, just the truth is he has only made an allegation that his work was changed without permission. In any case, when I was speaking of this happening often, I was not talking about grammer fixes or toning down of words. In the case of my friend I was speaking of, some of the stories were changed in a way similar to what is being alleged here. Of course, it is a bit different since it was not a review. Still, if they hold rights to Derivative works or alteration, etc., there is nothing wrong with what they did (legally speaking), whether it makes him upset or not. I'm fairly certain that they wouldn't change things in this way unless they held the rights to do so. That being the case, I'm wondering why the guy is even complaining. He agreed to the rights that NTUSA has over his stuff, so it makes no sense to complain. (of course he has the right to) It would be like me taking a job in which it was specifically told to me that I might have to work on weekends some weeks, and then getting upset when they make me do it. (sorry about the bad analogy, but I'm too tired to think of anything else involving contracts and rights)
Indeed, the same reason I buy it 
Ehh? His original review is the one that says it "fails considerably" , the NTUSA rewrite says it is "Ok" |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
s_j
Posts: 162 |
|
|||||||
|
Oh, I wasn't questioning your comment about this being widespread industry pratice at all. I see it, I know people who have made these claims. Heck, I've probably been guilty of it on some level in the past.
Was just making comments on NewTypeUSA, as a reader. (Actually, since I don't read it, just as an oggler...) |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Kazuki-san
Posts: 2251 Location: Houston, TX |
|
|||||||
I've tried reading it once or twice, but for as big as it is, it takes about 5 or 6 minutes to get through the whole thing, if I don't get distracted by the pictures 
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
Renaisance Otaku
 Posts: 469 Location: Modesto, CA |
|
|||||||
|
Stuff like this reminds me why I don't bother with magazines and reviews in general. That was a pretty big difference in wording. The original reads as a total failure, the rewrite makes it sound like "eh, it could have been better, but it's not bad". I could see why he'd be upset. I haven't bought an issue of Newtype USA since the premiere issue. The pretty pictures and so-so writing I saw in it isn't worth my ten bucks. I get all the info I need from the net.
Sure this thing happens all the time. I'm sure it's not just NT that does it. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Kazuki-san
Posts: 2251 Location: Houston, TX |
|
|||||||
That's the problem with not having both the whole original, and the whole rewrtten review to compare. Just taking out passages to show what they changed is good and all, but who's to say that in the whole review he didn't point out how it failed, and then point out what worked, and then say it was worth the buy as an intro to the OVA? (for $3 if it had any useful info it would probably be worth the buy) Or he could have said not to touch the thing with a ten foot pole. After what he said, buying NTUSA to read the rewritten review won't help (not that I would do that anyway). BTW, there is a preview for it on the Dark Horse site. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
zaphdash
 Posts: 620 Location: Brooklyn |
|
|||||||
The message wasn't the same at all. The original said that the comic "fails miserably." The rewrite said that it "works just OK." "Fails miserably," to me, says that this comic was a veritable train wreck. "Works just OK" tells me that it's hit or miss, but it's not terrible. The second sentence introduces a more subtle but still notable change. The original says that the creators try to cram too much story into too little space. It's neutral on the story itself, but says that they don't give themselves enough time to fully develop it. The rewrite says that they have a "tremendous story to cram into a small space." Tremendous, although it can mean simply "huge," usually carries a positive connotation. It means not only that there's a lot of story to tell, but that it's a generally good story. It also doesn't explicitly say that they failed to cram this tremendous story into this small space. It just says they have to do it, and with the positive light shed on the story itself, one might assume that they succeed (although that's merely an assumption made possible by the ambiguity in the writing, and not necessarily something it actually implies). Then the addition tacked onto the end of the final sentence in the rewrite directly contradicts what he said in his original version. After he says the comic fails miserably, the rewrite concludes by saying it works nicely. Granted, as someone else mentioned, we don't know just how deep these changes actually are when we only get bits and pieces. We'd need the full text of each version to see just how much the tone has changed. But the passages he provided in his post certainly weren't "essentially the same."
Personally, I'd be pretty pissed if someone went and changed something I wrote -- particularly when it's a review, and their rewrites change it in such a way that the review I wrote no longer reflects my own opinion. But then, I probably wouldn't accept a job where the magazine reserves the right to make such sweeping changes, so I suppose it's somewhat moot. It's his own fault for working for NTUSA in the first place. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
Haiseikoh 1973
 Posts: 1590 Location: Waiting for the Japanese 1000 Gunieas. |
|
|||||||
|
Simply put, after the whole Subscriber DVD debacle and eventual "Return of the DVD/Price Hike Combo," I would think Newtype would tread more carefully with it's dealings.
Guess not. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
darkhunter
Posts: 2992 Location: Los Angelas |
|
|||||||
Opps, mean it the other way around, ugh sometimes type too fast without thinking. But the main point is that it's not essentially the same. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
GATSU
Posts: 15306 |
|
|||||||
|
zaph:
Actually, he said "fails considerably", which means that it's not a total loss, thus validating the argument that it's at least satisfactory if not excellent.
Tremendous can also imply bloated and slow.
Not necessarily, since the writer still seems ambivalent enough about the content that he chooses not to knock it out of the park. If he hates it, then why doesn't he be more consistent in his opinion, instead of leaving room for the possibility that it could be positive later? |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
ChrisBeveridge
Posts: 162 |
|
|||||||
|
Just as a side note; the link never "changed" (at least on AoD) other than the thread being locked since it should have gone into a different topic. The thread itself is in a subforum that you need to be registered to view however so if you got a cannot proceed error, that's why you got it.
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
dmanjdb
Posts: 113 |
|
|||||||
|
People are saying this like this is new...
How about the first issue??? NTUSA gave a bad review to the End of Evangelion and Manga was pissed. So this isn't new with NTUSA reviews. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
dmanjdb
Posts: 113 |
|
|||||||
Nice analysis dude, but is the other way around. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
DriftRoot
 Posts: 222 Location: NH |
|
|||||||
|
All this debate is a perfect example of why people in the media industry have a somewhat unspoken belief in not letting the public know what goes on behind the scenes. In a perfect world, editors would only fix up factual, style and grammatical-type problems with the assumption that the people who work for them are competent and of like mind with the publication's views and goals.
Fact is, this isn't the way it works, editors who alter a writer's work in a way that writer feels is wrong are resented - whether or not the editor was right or the writer was. What comes out in public is the finished product, which is what readers are judging the publication by. When readers get handed other information about the reality of media - that what is presented as fact is, in reality, dependent entirely upon the ethics of more than a few people with an interest in keeping their jobs - lots of questions come up. I rarely believe what I read or see anymore unless I am familiar with the journalistic ethics of the publication itself. I happen to work for a very well-respected newspaper in a town where our competition is about as low as you can get and see this sort of thing all the time. It's really sickening what some people think is ok to put in print. This one incident of a review being tampered with to this extent cannot possibly be the only such instance at Newtype - it's just the only one we know of because some writer got pissed off enough to make the fact public. You don't have an otherwise ethical editorial staff suddenly hacking and slicing someone's review to death out of the blue. To be fair, you also have to consider that the writer is not necessarily a malaligned innocent. We don't know his track record and we don't know what else goes on at the editing desk. In any case, the entire incident points to how corrupt journalism brought to light damages the entire industry's credibility, hurting those publications that are doing a good job along with those doing a bad one. Remember that reporter at the New York Times who was discovered to be literally making up his stories (I think it was the Times)? The public is much more skeptical of the credibility of newspapers and the media in general, now, when they should not have to be. It's all very sad. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
vherub
Posts: 49 |
|
|||||||
|
it's odd that there is little to no discussion of this on AoD's forum. After it was stuffed back into the january discussion, the matter seemed dropped (it should not have been moved afaic)
having read the majority of issues, newtype is not exactly a hard-edged reviewing mag. Most, if not all of their reviews are generally positive. They recommend everything or only make the slightest of disparaging remarks. They certainly could not have a number scale, as i would imagine everything would be 8, 9 or 10. As pointed out, this may be their intention, in which case, they should make clear to writers that objective rules are less an issue than creating awareness for anime in general. I think newtype has less diabolical intentions, and rather just want to spread the word on anime. A decision has been made not to be overly harsh, and perhaps anime still needs this. The drawback is that going forward, when anime breaks out of its tender infancy stage, newtype's credibility for solid reviewing is shot (if they would even care) As it is, there are a number of other sites to get reviews that are far more valuable. From a content control standpoint, i do not know how newtype contracts out its work and whether they need to let the author know if content is being significantly changed- this happens all the time, in all forms of media to varying degrees, newtype is certainly not in the minority. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group