Hurin

Sure, generosity CAN be poisoned by selfish motivations HOWEVER pure compassion does exist. I would give him the benefit of the doubt here.

Give who the benefit of the doubt? People who have been known to spend thousands on toys in the past while constantly complaining about their price? But, now that there's finally some toys outside of their price range they're suddenly Mother Teresa and only thinking about starving children?

I swear, if you new guys were only aware of the personalities you were dealing with here. . .

That is very kind. Good on you mate. And I agree about the time I have wasted on this forum and hobby which could have been used for a huge variety of more important things

Don't thank me! I'm not the one doing it!

Edit: Either your sense of irony is more acute than mine and you're playing along, or the point of my post went entirely over your head.

I've notified the NYC branch of the UN's International Food Fund to be expecting a multi-thousand dollar donation courtesy of a certain someone's soon-to-be-sold Macross collection. I'm sure he won't let us down. People need help out there!

Everyone should also probably stop selfishly wasting hundreds of hours per year on this discussion forum when we could be volunteering at a local homeless shelter or otherwise doing charitable work with that time.

I've personally stopped buying Macross toys. I can't justify the expense myself since my priorities have changed. I only wish my priorities had changed so selflessly as others here who are kind enough to share their epiphany and new-found moral clarity.

But, we can all at least sleep better knowing that the "valk money" from one of our more long-standing member's collection will soon be on the way to the needy where it will begin spreading hope and prosperity across the globe.

Here Hurin -

If it helps; I only recently noticed that you were behind the subs on DYRL, which I recently (aka a month ago) managed to watch in a better, larger format than Youtube.

Let me put it this way:

I could care squat about minor arcane squibble/quibble points regarding translation - the first and only thing to come to my mind when - at the very beginning - the credits of Hurin/Macrossworld.com flashed before the screen was "AWESOME! HURIN DID THIS?! WOW! HE'S SO COOL!"

Becuase it was cool that I was able to watch and understand this and be moved by it rather than scratch my head thinking "gee - pretty pictures...wonder what they're saying?" or having to go find "Attack of the Bionoids."

So don't feel driven off.

People often forget, when critiquing fan translations, that it's not like the translator is paid, and it's not like we are "customers" who somehow are entitled (because we pay) to gripe and complain and get "customer service."

Ultimately, a fansub with the scope and magnitude of DYRL is a huge gift to those of us who don't speak japanese, and so please do not feel "driven away" ever. It would be utterly stupid if someone who contributed an entire translation of what is basically the seminal work in the Macross fandom felt slighted or driven away by that fandom.

Your work made me happy. Thank you for it.

Pete

Thanks for the kind words. Sorry that this thread has gotten so hijacked.

I have to ask though: In what format are people finding these subtitles now? The only way I ever disseminated them is via the two links in my signature where people can graft them onto their own DVDs (with no loss in video or audio quality). I never did get around to making a version of them for the remastered Region 2 DYRL re-release. But it sounds like someone did this and put my name on them? I actually never put any mention of myself or MW on the ones I created. Actually, the only thing that ever came close to a credits listing on mine was the "100% Pure Macross - Accept No Substitutes" banner that I had play just before the main menu. So if there is a DVD out there floating around with the subtitles I worked up and credited to me. . . that's news to me. I had heard brief asides about something being out there, but never looked into it.

And I haven't been nor will I be "driven off" by this or any other thread in particular. I just got older. I changed. MW changed. I didn't feel like being on staff anymore, and I just didn't find it as enjoyable to spend so much time here. Ya know. . . seven years is a long time.

I was under the impression that you found the translation, not that you made it. I must have been wrong about that.

Well, as I've always been up front about, I actually didn't "translate" anything exactly. I depended upon the translation that Ali Sama posted so long ago (that I think he himself found and did not translate himself either). . . another one I found online somewhere. . . and the (horrible) fx DVD subtitles. Actually, all three were pretty terrible. When the subs weren't utter nonsense, they were stilted and jarring to the english-speaker's ear. So even the part's that (barely) made sense still tended to interrupt the viewer's "suspension of disbelief" and make them regularly aware that they were reading (poorly) translated dialog. In other words, watching DYRL and trying to actually appreciate the story felt like work and it was hard to "get into" the story on its merits.

But with those three sources in-hand, I went through the script/subs line-by-line (all three versions) with the goal of consolidating them into something reasonably accurate, and then rewording that "unified script" so that the average english-speaker could watch DYRL and just "get it" without constantly having to figure out what all these bizarre subtitles were trying to say. By the end of it, I really did feel like I had essentially reworded just about every major line of dialog. But I would never claim to have translated anything since I never laid eyes on a single word of Japanese.

I wanted the experience to be as good as watching your average French movie subtitled for American audiences. To that end, I think the project was a success as back when it was originally completed there were several posts from folks stating that they (and perhaps more importantly, their GFs and spouses) could finally sit down and just simply enjoy (and understand) the story as it unfolded with no need to decipher cryptic subtitles.

So anyways. . . guess I'll wander off now. . .

But yeah, I do think it's screwed up, in that it's a mistranslation of the line.

By that standard, I'm pretty sure the entire project is a mistranslation since a literal translation wasn't my goal. My goal was to take what the apparent meaning of the words was (based on a couple fan translations and the fx subs) and rework that into idiomatic, natural-sounding english.

But let's take a look at what you seem to think the line should be:

Now, take a look at the subs as they appear. . .

Now, I don't know how you would have "translated" all the intervening language (about thousands of years and alien cities). . . but the meaning that you have said should be conveyed is conveyed. All the words you seem to think are so critical are there. I'm less concerned with "grammar and linguistics" than I am about the needs of the scene, the story, and the mood for an english-speaking audience. And so while you might be able to come up with a word-for-word literal translation that makes you happy, my goal was not to please those who understand Japanese language or culture. . . but to make the scenes, stories, and mood of the movie come across smoothly to the average english-speaking Macross fan. And to that end, those three lines appear to serve their purpose.

In a nutshell, you could almost certainly prove without a doubt via some pedantic, technical translation that the words "of course" are not there in the original Japanese and are technically not necessary. But if those additional english words with no Japanese corollary help to convey the message and/or mood of a scene to non-Japanese people, then. . . well, I don't really care.

Each time I reworded any of the lines I felt sounded stilted or just plain bizarre, I asked myself several questions regarding the changes I made:

"Does the scene sound natural?"

"Does the scene 'work?'"

"Is the apparent tone and mood of the scene respected?"

"Is the content of the scene respected?"

"Have I changed anything arbitrarily?"

To me, those are all more important questions than: Does x mean "ordinary" or "regular" or "normal?"

Though you say that you haven't seen the subtitles in years, I have to assume that you took that (unwarranted) meaning from them when you originally saw them. . . so I'm a bit perplexed how you so misjudged the tone of those lines and somehow got a "eureka-like" exclamation from Misa rather than a melancholy statement on her part. . . and I'm a bit unclear as to whether you still consider it to be "COMPLETELY screwed up" or if you can now at least concede that while it may not be as technically accurate as you would like, it doesn't really mangle the story. Your initial appraisal made it sound like the meaning of the final scene had been horribly distorted by the subtitles. And though you now say that you remembered the subtitles incorrectly, you don't quite retract that appraisal. Yet I would contend that if you feel the meaning of the movie's final scene is ruined by such a minor difference in word order, choice, or grammar, then there's not much to discuss.

To my mind, communication was established in a fashion that native engligh speakers would find readily accessible. That was my goal. A few words out of order or my failure to use the subjunctive, to my mind, doesn't constitute "COMPLETELY screwed up."

At that time I was spending a few hundred man-hours on this project. . . reading the scripts, jotting down the fx subs, rewording, researching, retiming, rewatching, nudging each subtitle, recompiling, reburning, rewatching, taking more notes, nuding the subtitles around, rewording a line that bothers me, etc. . . I posted several threads to these forums asking people's opinion on a few sticky areas and discussing "literal translation" vs "cultural accessibility." At that time, everyone seemed pretty happy with the idea that we'd have some natural-sounding english subtitles even if this or that word might not be perfectly, literally translated.

Finally. . . you didn't "drive me from MW". . . but the years of this very sort of stuff sure gets old after a while. The "internet forum culture" where self-styled experts feel it's just fine to crap all over someone's (very) hard work. . . often disingenuously or from a false premise (to misquote something, fundamentally misunderstand it, and then crap on it based on a faulty quotation/understanding of it), all within the "virtual earshot" of the person who worked hard on it in the first place? That's something that only happens on the internet. And I got tired of that sort of stuff a while back. In short, I'm too old for this sh*t.

I can't really help you if you still think that such a minor difference in wording ruins that final scene. This is the first time anyone has ever had a problem with it. And I think that should probably serve as an indicator that you're hung up on pedantic technicalities of linguistic nuance rather than asking yourself: "Did the scene work?"

H

. . .and the COMPLETELY screwed up final line of the movie: "Just a normal...love song," which those subs had as "Of course! It's a love song!"

If you're going to claim that something is "COMPLETELY screwed up". . . please do me the courtesy of at least quoting the line correctly.

You misquote the final line in the subtitles (above) as being:

As though Misa is just realizing at the last moment of the movie that the song she translated herself is actually a love song. Which would indeed be idiotic were that really how the subtitle appears.

But the subtitle actually reads:

Which is not an expression of surprise or discovery, but a melancholy (re)statement of an already known fact. . . as one would say: "of course the gasoline caught fire before we could help." The "of course" is another way of saying: "and as we know. . ." In the context of that scene, the "of course" gives it a melancholy feel. Which I think is appropriate.

Now, according to you (and not being a Japanese speaker I have no way of confirming). . . the line should read: "Just a normal...love song."

Honestly, I'm not sure there's even a worthwhile difference between what is there in "my" subtitle and what you think it should be (especially given that the prior two subtitles establish that the sone was "ordinary" where you would have "normal"). I think what is there actually sounds more natural and fits the mood better than the (apparently) literally translated Japanese. But what I do know is that I don't really care for your mischaracterization of what the subtitle actually says and the way you then inflated that false portrayal of it into the "COMPLETE screwing up" of the last line of the movie. That just simply isn't the case.

There is a big difference between: "Of course! It's a love song!" and "Of course it was. . . a love song." Tense, tone, intent, and literal meaning are all very different between those two. So I have no clue how you got the former meaning (complete with made-up exclamation points) from the latter words as they actually appear. It's especially puzzling how that line could be misinterpreted so badly given all the cues provided by Misa's vocal tones and the mood of the scene as a whole. And the fact that the lines are in answer to Claudia's inquiry as to the nature of the song.

Edit: For a better sense of the context and how Misa is clearly not exclaiming in a eureka moment: "Of course! It's a love song!" as the movie fades to black. . . here's the preceding lines for context. This is actually how they appear on the DVD that I subtitled. Each line appears on its own on the screen as Misa speaks, responding to Claudia's question:

The ellipses (. . .) preceding "a love song" coincide with a pause that Misa takes before saying those words in english. So if that's "COMPLETELY screwed up" to anyone. . . I'll know why I stopped coming here.

H

wow, really? $40 to make a snowboard and then sell it for $300-$400. what's a snowboard made of? (sorry, no snow in our part of the world). definitely not plastic.

makes me REALLY want to know how much it costs to make a valk.

I have no idea why people are so fixated on the cost of production here.

It makes no difference! The price is set by the market . . . not by how much they spent to produce them. They will price them at the "magic point" where it's high enough to maximize their profit. So. . . not so high that very few people can afford their product and therefore will not purchase it. Yet not so low that they could have sold just about as many for a higher price.

It really doesn't matter if it costs $10 or $50 to produce, the price they charge would be the same. And they're doing nothing wrong in charging us that price. They're not in business to make you love them. They're in business to provide you a product for as much money as they can extract from you without making you so resentful that you'd never buy from them again.

For those who didn't search: The answer is that you need to check the box at the bottom of the outgoing message that instructs the system to save it to your sent folder before sending it.

Did you check all the boxes in the "Clear Private Data" window? Cookies are probably the problem, and the cookies checkbox isn't selected by default.

H

Yeah, but few people want to do a full clearing of everything---then you have to re-type your passwords for 20 other sites again... (I know MSIE likes to "hide" a lot of web temp files in other folders you can't see, and you can only ever delete them via a FULL clearing---from past experience I know MW usually has 2 cookies, and deleting just 1 won't fix the login problem--but my web cache is only bringing up 1, so I suspect the other is in a "hidden" folder, so I can't delete it, so I can't fix the problem--unless I feel like deleting everything then re-typing my login info for every site I go to--which is a lot)

I've personally had some luck selectively clearing cookies and such when I've had similar concerns. But if the problem persists, the only real solution is indeed a full cache and cookie wipe. Sh*t happens.

If you're still buying them despite all those angry misgivings, then clearly the price is just right. Or perhaps too low. They're out to get as much for each toy as they possibly can without pissing you off so much that you won't buy the next toy.

So, the only poll that matters is the one you participate in via your wallet.

Edit: Oh, and the cost to actually manufacture the toy is largely irrelevant. Price is set by what we are willing to pay, not by how much the toy costs to produce. Unless, of course, we're willing to pay less than the toy costs to produce. In which case, the toy won't get made.

Nearly every time this comes up, a full clearing of your cache and cookies will resolve the issue.

When I do visit, I access MW from three different computers on two different networks and have never had any issues with remaining logged in across multiple sessions. I normally use Firefox 3.x.

In other words, it ain't the site and it ain't the server.

Jeez, I sound like I work here!

You don't read too well these days, do you? I despise all reboots as unncessary and posted to that effect already.

And you keep dancing around the point and/or pretending not to understand it. You apparently don't mind canon and/or pre-existing movies being f-ed with, unless they actually call them a "reboot". . . then suddenly they're fit to be "despised" as "rubbish." Yet I daresay Lucas could not have done more "damage" to how many SW fans view the original trilogy had he indeed done a "reboot" and called it such. So, to you, reboots are "bad." But mangling things without actually calling it a "reboot" is apparently good.

You should probably tone down the defensive vitriol

Have you looked in the mirror lately? Every time Star Wars comes up, you. . . oh f--k it. Nevermind, I'm not going to waste any more time on you. I couldn't possibly respect anyone's opinion less. Every time we have ever discussed SW you have demonstrated again and again that you are indeed the real hopeless, obsessed fanboy that you so regularly and hipocritically accuse others of being because they actually have the temerity to critique your beloved prequels (or even RotJ). Indeed, you've demonstrated repeatedly that you actually pride yourself on being completely undiscriminating in your taste in movies (especially SW movies). That's not a dig. . . that's just the proper word that describes someone who for years now has stated that he is unable to differentiate/discriminate between a fart joke and a one-liner. . . or a Jar-Jar and an R2-D2 ("They're both there for comic relief! They're no different!"). What point is there in discussing something with someone who not only can't discriminate between not-so-subtle differences in various movies, but also then angrily, arrogantly, and condescendingly attacks anyone who does point out fundamental differences that are painfully obvious to anyone not blinded by either fanatical devotion or just plain terrible taste (or in your case, probably both).

So, is it f--ked up of me to say that you have terrible taste in movies or that you are incredibly undiscriminating? Oh well. Sue me. I don't really give a f--k. You've taunted, and condescended enough for so long that I no longer feel it necessary to remain cordial when addressing what you attempt to pass off as arguments. I don't argue with people whose opinions I don't respect. So you can go get all butt-hurt at someone else for not liking your beloved prequels, or ewoks, or your essay on midichlorians. Cuz I certainly don't give a sh*t anymore. So if you ever wonder why I haven't responded to your taunts or inane attempts at cogent arguments in the future, that's why.

And if anyone on staff wants to discipline me for the "defensive vitriol" above. . . go right ahead. I demoted myself earlier today so you're free to do so.

H

It's not ironic, it's a little something called consistency, though I can't expect those of you with the traumatic raped childhoods to know better.

So, just to clarify. . .

Star Trek starting over and changing things without rendering all prior stuff moot = rubbish.

Star Wars going back to the prequel era and intentionally changing things retroactively within the continuity = good.

If that's consistency, you have a funny definition of the word. And to be honest, I'm not sure you understood the point since the rest of your post doesn't really address it. It's not about how consistent they've been in adhering to their own canon. It's about how inconsistent you are in judging them when they diverge from it or alter it. Now that Star Trek is rebooting and changing things in a more fan-friendly way than Star Wars did, it's "rubbish" to you. But just about any time anyone has used a word even approximating "rubbish" to describe the prequels and how they mangle the original films retroactively (much messier than a "reboot"), you appear in a puff of smoke to explain how it's all really wonderful and then immediately begin castigating anyone who dares to differentiate or discriminate between the wildly fluctuating quality level of those movies as being part of the "raped childhood" brigade.

Of course, your ilk have always had their head in the sand and Empire turned out the way it was DESPITE the efforts of Lucas. You can thank the unlikely coalition of Marsha, Kasdan, Kirchner. Lucas wanted Empire as campy as New Hope and Phantom Menace... he just had to make some compromises to get that done. He doesn't have to make compromises anymore and hasn't for some time.

You say this as though it's news. But it's nice to see that even you are now acknowledging that the movies got crappier as they went along as Lucas became less restrained. Welcome to reality!

Best source on this was the "Secret History of Star Wars" but it's author apparently is trying to publish it or some such as it doesn't appear to be available to download anymore.

I'll just take a moment to point out that you're still reading stuff like that after all these years (when you're not writing essays about midichlorians). Meanwhile, your only real "argument" always seems to boil down to stating that others are mal-adjusted uber-obsessed fanboys that are constantly screaming that Lucas raped their childhood.

Your perfect world will fortunately never exist, however. Meanwhile Lucas will always be laughing his way to the bank.

Uh. Okay. Lucas is rich. We know. Geez, could you try to fit a consistent point in between this stuff please? Otherwise, you're just saying "head in the sand. . . raped childhoods. . . Lucas is rich!". . . and I've heard it all before. Meanwhile, keep calling reboots "rubbish". . . Lucas's mangling wonderful. . . and then pat yourself on the back for imaginary "consistency."

I'll give you the last word so as not to derail this thread any further. I'll look forward to reading and then ignoring more of your taunts and arrogant dismissals of any varying point of view. Even as you seem to be gradually (it's taking long enough!) beginning to agree with them.

It's funny. . . of all the VF-1 color schemes, Hikaru's VF-1J from SDF Macross just seems to belong in battroid mode more than any other. Whereas I nearly always display the others in Fighter or Gerwalk.

And those images are incredible. Maybe it's something about the VF-1J head, but the fuselage poking up above the chest-plate looks less pronounced on the VF-1J. Only an optical illusion I'm sure. . . but a welcome one!

H

Ironic or hypocritical? All things Georgish are grand but don't you dare touch my classic Trek?

Honestly, I don't see why people get so out of joint about this particular case of a reboot, since all the classic stuff is still around. There's a case to be made against Lucas, I suppose, considering that he won't make the classic versions available, but that's not the case with Trek. Are people lamenting that there won't be anything more added to the Trek continuity they've loved so far? Do they think a reboot somehow invalidates everything that already happened? To me, that would be like saying "woe is me, now I can never watch From Russia With Love again, because it's not part of the new continuity so it never happened!" I mean it's all fiction... none of it ever happened.

Perhaps I need to be more fanatical...

A reboot also has the quality (for those who can hold in their heads multiple iterations of the same property) that it need not affect your appreciation of the original in any way. Unlike, say. . . making some prequels that seem almost perversely intended to undo a lot of what many liked about the originals and fundamentally alter how we now view them. The obvious example among many: Once you see Vader in the prequels, it's hard to see him or appreciate him the same way in the originals. And the change is generally not thought to be a good one (thanks to terrible casting and worse writing).

Whereas here. . . no matter what they do to Kirk. . . it's not going to affect my thinking Shatner is a bad-ass in the original series. Nor will it make me think of Picard as less of a Commie wuss (certain bad-ass moments aside).

The trailer was supposed to be attached to Quantum of Solace (along with Watchmen), but instead all we got treated to was a bunch of garbage. Angels and Demons?! Frak that. And now the trailer is online on Apple's site, but I don't have Quicktime installed here at the office.

The trailer was attached to my viewing of QoS. Guess some theaters didn't get their copy in time? No Watchmen though.

I've never been one to dwell on the past or exclaim "they raped my childhood".

Ironically, it's some of the most ardent supporters of every little detail that Lucas went back and did to his franchise that are now calling the concept of a Trek reboot "rubbish."

Apparently they prefer that beloved intellectual properties be horribly mangled the old-fashioned way.

I much prefer what Star Trek is doing. In fact, Star Wars could use a reboot as well. But that will probably have to wait until Lucas goes the way of Rodenberry.* And of course, in my perfect world, it wouldn't be a full reboot. They'd just start up again after Empire.

*No, that's not to say that I wish ill upon him. Just stating the fact that it's unlikely that Lucas would ever allow a Star Wars reboot.

Actually, as loathe as I am to defend any Brosnan Bond film other than Goldeneye, this was not the issue. In fact, Die Another Day (easily the Worst. Bond. Ever.) was the highest grossing Bond until Casino Royale took the title away.

I stand corrected.

Though it still seems reasonable to suspect that the studios were looking to broaden the appeal of the franchise.

This bond movie aint a bond movie.

By those standards, neither was Casino Royale. And perhaps those very criteria, ironically, are what is responsible for the franchise's rejuvenation. People other than grognard Bond fans are actually interested in seeing them.

And what was wrong with Pierce Brosnan?

Shrinking box office numbers was what was wrong with Brosnan.

Saw it tonight. It was good. Not as good as Casino Royale. But enjoyable.

It's not supposed to be Hamlet.

Wasn't "Enterprise" a "current era sucks, let's go back to the beginning" type thing? Didn't work so well.

Surely you realize that there is a difference between, on one hand, going back in time within an existing canon and, on other hand, "rebooting" the canon and saying that none of the pre-existing rules ("baggage") applies.

Enterprise was still beholden to the baggage. This movie is a reboot, and therefore is not.

All of this reboot nonsense (sans the uniforms) would have worked just as well if they'd just placed it in current era ST, with entirely new characters/ship. Since the intent is to draw in a new fanbase, why bother reusing anything that's come before, and just setup a new crew.

Isn't the point of the reboot to get rid of all the increasingly lame baggage that was piled onto the franchise the last few times they just introduced an "entirely new characters/ship" in the "current era ST?"

The whole point of a reboot is to say: "The current era sucks. We're starting over." And that's a sentiment with which I whole-heartedly concur.

IMHO, the reboot was a great decision and the only way to revive the franchise. . . as it's the only realistic and effective way of fully wresting it from the grasp of its increasingly emo, eccentric (and Communist!) fanbase.

(I'm only partially kidding about the Communism thing!)

H

Sure? Because mine rubbed on the first transformation, and get worse every time.

I guess I see where they're making contact. But I haven't noticed that it's actually doing any harm. So for me (at least so far), it's a non-issue. I wasn't even aware that the 1/48 didn't also make contact there.