English sub - how freely translated?
Rudolf Polzer
I hear names, but I do not read them. A sure sign of a free
translation.
Now I am asking how accurate the English subs are. Normally when a name
is spoken it is also written.
And then I am asking if puns like Misato saying "Take advantage of
everything except me!" also exist in the Japanese version - at least
this pun is missing in the German version (but I do not know how to
translate _this_ into German).
And to Disaster: what happened to this sentence in the dub?
Disaster
I'm no expert in comparative translations between Japanese and English
scripts. I do know that what appears to be "free translation" comes from a
lot of sweat and blood over what the best, most appropriate translation
would be. It's not like Matt glanced over the Japanese version and then spit
out his own over night.
--
Kind regards
Disaster
Disaster's Fan Fiction - http://www.disfanfic.net
JAE FAQ - http://www.evafaq.com
Pen^3's JAE FAQ - http://faq.pen3.cjb.net
Michael Wignall
news:slrnadsh8g.co0.Ant...@www42.durchnull.de...
<Snip>
> Now I am asking how accurate the English subs are.
Personally I don't trust the ADV translation much at all. But of
course that stems partially from the incorrect changing of Children
to Child. Also IIRC a lot of references to "God" were made in
in sub that weren't actually in the original and I think a couple
of Kaoru's references to "Humanity" were changed.
Of course it has been years now since I actually say down and watched
Eva so I can't really remember. Apparently the EoE translation is supposed
to be very good, (they didn't do crazy stuff like totally change Asuka's
last line for instance).
--
Michael Wignall
"Tomorrow's just an excuse away..."
Rudolf Polzer
> "Rudolf Polzer" <AntiATFiel...@durchnull.de> wrote:
> > Now I am asking how accurate the English subs are. Normally when a name
> > is spoken it is also written.
>
> I'm no expert in comparative translations between Japanese and English
> scripts. I do know that what appears to be "free translation" comes from a
> lot of sweat and blood over what the best, most appropriate translation
> would be. It's not like Matt glanced over the Japanese version and then spit
> out his own over night.
I did not say a free translation was something bad. I just wanted to
know how free it is.
Rudolf Polzer
> "Rudolf Polzer" <AntiATFiel...@durchnull.de> wrote in message
> news:slrnadsh8g.co0.Ant...@www42.durchnull.de...
> <Snip>
> > Now I am asking how accurate the English subs are.
>
> Personally I don't trust the ADV translation much at all.
That's why I was asking.
> But of course that stems partially from the incorrect changing of
> Children to Child.
Which _is_ a correct translation. You have the choice: leave it or
translate it. The German subs use "Children" in quotation marks.
"Children" fits in any language except the English one where it is
grammatically incorrect.
In English you have the choice: you can write 'first "Children"' and
'first child', perhaps 'first Children' (capitalized C). IMHO they are
all correct.
> Also IIRC a lot of references to "God" were made in
> in sub that weren't actually in the original
Example?
> and I think a couple
> of Kaoru's references to "Humanity" were changed.
I only noticed "Lilim" - but I think I hear this word also. At least
it sounded similarily.
But it does look somehow weird - in the English dub it looks like Shinji
does not notice Kaoru speaking about humanity as the "Lilim" and in the
second person, not including himself. Is it that obvious in the
original?
Disaster
Ah well, I was in a bad mood and I really can't help. Guess I'm also sick of
people shitting on Matt.
Disaster
> "Rudolf Polzer" <AntiATFiel...@durchnull.de> wrote:
> <Snip>
> > Now I am asking how accurate the English subs are.
>
> Personally I don't trust the ADV translation much at all. But of
> course that stems partially from the incorrect changing of Children
> to Child.
*Twitch*
Talk to the GAINAX consultant who authorized it!
> Also IIRC a lot of references to "God" were made in
> in sub that weren't actually in the original and I think a couple
> of Kaoru's references to "Humanity" were changed.
>
> Of course it has been years now since I actually say down and watched
> Eva so I can't really remember. Apparently the EoE translation is supposed
> to be very good, (they didn't do crazy stuff like totally change Asuka's
> last line for instance).
I'm sure we all know that script is translated from it's meaning, not it's
actual word for word dialog. I know that some of you think that you could
have done a better job or at least wished that others could do a perfect
job. I recommend you bitch on GAINAX though, not ADV. They are the ones with
the final say on the release, not ADV. A lot of the changes were not even
ADV's idea.
Disaster
> Scripsit illa aut ille Michael Wignall <wi...@evangelion.com>:
> > <Snip>
> > > Now I am asking how accurate the English subs are.
> >
> > Personally I don't trust the ADV translation much at all.
>
> That's why I was asking.
Michael's distrust is actually misdirected. Although I have tried to set him
straight before he keeps reverting to this sad and horrible, self-inflicted,
mental state. Most likely an attempt to protect himself from the idea that
he's wrong.
> > But of course that stems partially from the incorrect changing of
> > Children to Child.
This is one of his defenses. His grasp on English grammar totally flies out
the window.
> Which _is_ a correct translation. You have the choice: leave it or
> translate it. The German subs use "Children" in quotation marks.
> "Children" fits in any language except the English one where it is
> grammatically incorrect.
And as the meaning is being translated and it is being translated into
English it stands that it should be converted into a grammatically correct
version. Especially as GAINAX insisted. Don't think it really matters that
the Original version used the exact word, "children" themselves. Obviously
all things can be corrected. You all should be thankful, not spiteful.
> In English you have the choice: you can write 'first "Children"' and
> 'first child', perhaps 'first Children' (capitalized C). IMHO they are
> all correct.
Actually you can not write "first children" in any context where English is
concerned. Just doesn't make sense.
Michael Wignall
> Scripsit illa aut ille Michael Wignall <wi...@evangelion.com>:
> > "Rudolf Polzer" <AntiATFiel...@durchnull.de> wrote in message
> > news:slrnadsh8g.co0.Ant...@www42.durchnull.de...
> > <Snip>
> > > Now I am asking how accurate the English subs are.
> >
> > Personally I don't trust the ADV translation much at all.
>
> That's why I was asking.
>
> > But of course that stems partially from the incorrect changing of
> > Children to Child.
>
> Which _is_ a correct translation. You have the choice: leave it or
> translate it. The German subs use "Children" in quotation marks.
> "Children" fits in any language except the English one where it is
> grammatically incorrect.
The point is that there was no need for a translation at all. The
Japanese VA's were told to say the English word "Children".
They say "Children" in the original Japanese! It was written as
"tekikakusha" which translates to "qualified / adequate person",
not to "Children" at all. They was no need to do any translation
though in that the word was already in English, they were already
using the English word "Children" and they meant to use the English
word "Children", they knew it was grammatically incorrect for
most of the pilots, which is why they used it!
> In English you have the choice: you can write 'first "Children"' and
> 'first child', perhaps 'first Children' (capitalized C). IMHO they are
> all correct.
"Child" isn't correct at all in my opinion. The title of the pilots
is already in English. It is given as "Children" in English. If we
are talking subtitles here then it is really just wrong. You hear
the character say "Children" yet it is subtitled "Child". No matter
how you look at it that is wrong.
> > Also IIRC a lot of references to "God" were made in
> > in sub that weren't actually in the original
>
> Example?
Ok well I couldn't remember any off the top of my head, so
I had to look this up. In (the original) episoide 07 Misato says
"We'd better do something other than wait for that miracle."
In ADV's dub she says "Acts of men are better than acts of
God!"
> > and I think a couple
> > of Kaoru's references to "Humanity" were changed.
>
> I only noticed "Lilim" - but I think I hear this word also. At least
> it sounded similarily.
>
> But it does look somehow weird - in the English dub it looks
> like Shinji does not notice Kaoru speaking about humanity as
> the "Lilim" and in the second person, not including himself.
> Is it that obvious in the original?
Well Kaoru should call mankind "Lilim". That is what they are
after all, however apparently in the original ADV sub it's
translated as "humans". I have heard that ADV actually defended
this change as correct, however the DVD subs have "Lilim" now,
so it seems that is fixed.
They also TOTALLY mistranslated the title of episode 26.
They translated it "The Beast Who Shouted "I" At the Heart
of the World".
It should of course be "The Beast Who Shouted Love At the
Heart of the World." which is a SF story by Harlan Ellison.
As we all know Anno likes to title his ending episodes after
SF titles.
There really is no excuse for that last one. Not only does it
totally change the meaning of the title but it also completely
destroys the reference.
Rudolf Polzer
> > Scripsit illa aut ille Michael Wignall <wi...@evangelion.com>:
> > > "Rudolf Polzer" <AntiATFiel...@durchnull.de> wrote:
> > > <Snip>
> > > > Now I am asking how accurate the English subs are.
> > >
> > > Personally I don't trust the ADV translation much at all.
> >
> > That's why I was asking.
>
> Michael's distrust is actually misdirected. Although I have tried to set him
> straight before he keeps reverting to this sad and horrible, self-inflicted,
> mental state. Most likely an attempt to protect himself from the idea that
> he's wrong.
I think without knowing that the English translation is relatively close
to the original. But I can only know it from hearing the same names as
stand in the subs.
> > > But of course that stems partially from the incorrect changing of
> > > Children to Child.
>
> This is one of his defenses. His grasp on English grammar totally flies out
> the window.
*g* Grammar?
> > In English you have the choice: you can write 'first "Children"' and
> > 'first child', perhaps 'first Children' (capitalized C). IMHO they are
> > all correct.
>
> Actually you can not write "first children" in any context where English is
> concerned. Just doesn't make sense.
If I put it in quotation marks, it's just a name. Just like
"Zwioh Trqwe" which is of course no correct English, but can be a name.
In 'First "Children"' the word "Children" is just a name and has no
meaning in English. Not that it still sounds funny.
Disaster
> Scripsit illa aut ille Disaster <disa...@disfanfic.net>:
> > "Rudolf Polzer" <AntiATFiel...@durchnull.de> wrote:
> > > Scripsit illa aut ille Michael Wignall <wi...@evangelion.com>:
> > > > "Rudolf Polzer" <AntiATFiel...@durchnull.de> wrote:
> > > > <Snip>
> > > > > Now I am asking how accurate the English subs are.
> > > >
> > > > Personally I don't trust the ADV translation much at all.
> > >
> > > That's why I was asking.
> >
> > Michael's distrust is actually misdirected. Although I have tried to set
him
> > straight before he keeps reverting to this sad and horrible,
self-inflicted,
> > mental state. Most likely an attempt to protect himself from the idea
that
> > he's wrong.
>
> I think without knowing that the English translation is relatively close
> to the original. But I can only know it from hearing the same names as
> stand in the subs.
Well, not a lot of help if the name means something else and the rights
owning company wants you to use a properly translated version rather then a
directly translated one. I don't have an example or anything mind you, it's
just one of those possible scenario's. :)
> > > > But of course that stems partially from the incorrect changing of
> > > > Children to Child.
> >
> > This is one of his defenses. His grasp on English grammar totally flies
out
> > the window.
>
> *g* Grammar?
What?
> > > In English you have the choice: you can write 'first "Children"' and
> > > 'first child', perhaps 'first Children' (capitalized C). IMHO they are
> > > all correct.
> >
> > Actually you can not write "first children" in any context where English
is
> > concerned. Just doesn't make sense.
>
> If I put it in quotation marks, it's just a name. Just like
> "Zwioh Trqwe" which is of course no correct English, but can be a name.
> In 'First "Children"' the word "Children" is just a name and has no
> meaning in English. Not that it still sounds funny.
If it's a name, then you can do whatever you can do to a name to it if you
want. However, they were not calling the 3rd child, "3rd Children," his name
was Shinji Ikari.
Disaster
> "Rudolf Polzer" <AntiATFiel...@durchnull.de> wrote:
> > >
> > Which _is_ a correct translation. You have the choice: leave it or
> > translate it. The German subs use "Children" in quotation marks.
> > "Children" fits in any language except the English one where it is
> > grammatically incorrect.
>
> The point is that there was no need for a translation at all. The
> Japanese VA's were told to say the English word "Children".
> They say "Children" in the original Japanese! It was written as
> "tekikakusha" which translates to "qualified / adequate person",
> not to "Children" at all. They was no need to do any translation
> though in that the word was already in English, they were already
> using the English word "Children" and they meant to use the English
> word "Children", they knew it was grammatically incorrect for
> most of the pilots, which is why they used it!
No, they used it because GAINAX told them to.
> > In English you have the choice: you can write 'first "Children"' and
> > 'first child', perhaps 'first Children' (capitalized C). IMHO they are
> > all correct.
>
> "Child" isn't correct at all in my opinion. The title of the pilots
> is already in English. It is given as "Children" in English. If we
> are talking subtitles here then it is really just wrong. You hear
> the character say "Children" yet it is subtitled "Child". No matter
> how you look at it that is wrong.
Yer right, they should not have screwed up the word in the first place.
> > > Also IIRC a lot of references to "God" were made in
> > > in sub that weren't actually in the original
> >
> > Example?
>
> Ok well I couldn't remember any off the top of my head, so
> I had to look this up. In (the original) episoide 07 Misato says
> "We'd better do something other than wait for that miracle."
> In ADV's dub she says "Acts of men are better than acts of
> God!"
Again, talk to GAINAX.
> > > and I think a couple
> > > of Kaoru's references to "Humanity" were changed.
> >
> > I only noticed "Lilim" - but I think I hear this word also. At least
> > it sounded similarily.
> >
> > But it does look somehow weird - in the English dub it looks
> > like Shinji does not notice Kaoru speaking about humanity as
> > the "Lilim" and in the second person, not including himself.
> > Is it that obvious in the original?
>
> Well Kaoru should call mankind "Lilim". That is what they are
> after all, however apparently in the original ADV sub it's
> translated as "humans". I have heard that ADV actually defended
> this change as correct, however the DVD subs have "Lilim" now,
> so it seems that is fixed.
GAINAX
> They also TOTALLY mistranslated the title of episode 26.
> They translated it "The Beast Who Shouted "I" At the Heart
> of the World".
GAINAX
> It should of course be "The Beast Who Shouted Love At the
> Heart of the World." which is a SF story by Harlan Ellison.
> As we all know Anno likes to title his ending episodes after
> SF titles.
Pfft, GAINAX.
> There really is no excuse for that last one. Not only does it
> totally change the meaning of the title but it also completely
> destroys the reference.
I'm not saying it again.
Michael Wignall
news:udv4k7k...@corp.supernews.com...
> "Michael Wignall" <wi...@evangelion.com> wrote:
> > "Rudolf Polzer" <AntiATFiel...@durchnull.de> wrote:
> >
> > The point is that there was no need for a translation at all. The
> > Japanese VA's were told to say the English word "Children".
> > They say "Children" in the original Japanese! It was written as
> > "tekikakusha" which translates to "qualified / adequate person",
> > not to "Children" at all. They was no need to do any translation
> > though in that the word was already in English, they were already
> > using the English word "Children" and they meant to use the English
> > word "Children", they knew it was grammatically incorrect for
> > most of the pilots, which is why they used it!
>
> No, they used it because GAINAX told them to.
So far I have yet to see any evidence that this is true. In fact
I highly doubt it is true becuase some "Offical Gainax" publications
such as "2015: The last year of Rouji Kaji" have lines in them like;
"Think about the meaning of the term CHILDREN".
> > > In English you have the choice: you can write 'first "Children"' and
> > > 'first child', perhaps 'first Children' (capitalized C). IMHO they
are
> > > all correct.
> >
> > "Child" isn't correct at all in my opinion. The title of the pilots
> > is already in English. It is given as "Children" in English. If we
> > are talking subtitles here then it is really just wrong. You hear
> > the character say "Children" yet it is subtitled "Child". No matter
> > how you look at it that is wrong.
>
> Yer right, they should not have screwed up the word in the first place.
It was intentional. It is gramatically correct in Rei's case.
> > > > Also IIRC a lot of references to "God" were made in
> > > > in sub that weren't actually in the original
> > >
> > > Example?
> >
> > Ok well I couldn't remember any off the top of my head, so
> > I had to look this up. In (the original) episoide 07 Misato says
> > "We'd better do something other than wait for that miracle."
> > In ADV's dub she says "Acts of men are better than acts of
> > God!"
>
> Again, talk to GAINAX.
Gainax don't care about the western release. Nor should they.
The fact remains that it was changed from the original. I am not
interested in an ADV "interpretation" of the original, I am interested
in the original.
> > They also TOTALLY mistranslated the title of episode 26.
> > They translated it "The Beast Who Shouted "I" At the Heart
> > of the World".
>
> GAINAX
>
> > It should of course be "The Beast Who Shouted Love At the
> > Heart of the World." which is a SF story by Harlan Ellison.
> > As we all know Anno likes to title his ending episodes after
> > SF titles.
>
> Pfft, GAINAX.
>
> > There really is no excuse for that last one. Not only does it
> > totally change the meaning of the title but it also completely
> > destroys the reference.
>
> I'm not saying it again.
Right so Anno gave permission to totally destroy the meaning of
his reference to Harlan Ellison's story? I don't think so.
GearType2
"Michael Wignall" <wi...@evangelion.com> wrote in message
news:sKHD8.7780$Q85.4...@ozemail.com.au...
The title I'll give ya, but sorry to say the rest is just piddly crap only a
few people would care about. So they dubbed it child, they did this simply
to make it sound better to the englsih audience, nothing more. They also
changed a few lines (acts of men are better...) probably to get a better
emotional response by the listener. Although all your reasons for being a
bit peeved are perfectly valid you must understand that these things were
changed for the better not the worse.
Anyways, to sum it up. Most people want the story of Evangelion retold in
english, they don't mind if a few lines are changed to emmit more emotion or
become grammatically correct
Michael Wignall
news:6TND8.41221$WR1.39091@sccrnsc01...
<Snip>
>
> The title I'll give ya, but sorry to say the rest is just
> piddly crap only a few people would care about.
Anyone who cares about the integrity of the original
story would care about such things.
> So they dubbed it child, they did this simply to make
> it sound better to the englsih audience, nothing more.
And to completely remove any meaning it had. It is suppose
to sound weird, that is the point of using the English word
"Children" and not "Child".
> They also changed a few lines (acts of men are better...)
> probably to get a better emotional response by the listener.
It's not their job to "get a better response from the listener".
They have no idea at all what those scenes are supposed to
mean. What the purpose of a line is. They didn't create the
show, so why should they change lines just becuase they think
it sounds better?
> Although all your reasons for being a bit peeved are perfectly
> valid you must understand that these things were changed
> for the better not the worse.
I understand that the intention may have been a good one, however
I think the result was bad, and overall the process was misguided.
> Anyways, to sum it up. Most people want the story of
> Evangelion retold in english, they don't mind if a few lines
> are changed to emmit more emotion or become grammatically
> correct
I don't think most people want that at all. Most people want
to watch the original story, unchanged by a distributor.
Rudolf Polzer
> > If I put it in quotation marks, it's just a name. Just like
> > "Zwioh Trqwe" which is of course no correct English, but can be a name.
> > In 'First "Children"' the word "Children" is just a name and has no
> > meaning in English. Not that it still sounds funny.
>
> If it's a name, then you can do whatever you can do to a name to it if you
> want. However, they were not calling the 3rd child, "3rd Children," his name
> was Shinji Ikari.
I did not really mean 'name'... what's the correct English word for
'Bezeichnung'?
Rudolf Polzer
> "Rudolf Polzer" <AntiATFiel...@durchnull.de> wrote in message
> news:slrnadt0ae.e8m.Ant...@www42.durchnull.de...
> > Scripsit illa aut ille Michael Wignall <wi...@evangelion.com>:
> > > in sub that weren't actually in the original
> >
> > Example?
>
> Ok well I couldn't remember any off the top of my head, so
> I had to look this up. In (the original) episoide 07 Misato says
> "We'd better do something other than wait for that miracle."
> In ADV's dub she says "Acts of men are better than acts of
> God!"
Which is a correct free translation because it has exactly the same
meaning: miracle = act of God, 'do something' = act of men.
But that _is_ an example of that the translation is free and not word by
word. Still nothing bad.
> > > and I think a couple
> > > of Kaoru's references to "Humanity" were changed.
> >
> > I only noticed "Lilim" - but I think I hear this word also. At least
> > it sounded similarily.
> >
> > But it does look somehow weird - in the English dub it looks
> > like Shinji does not notice Kaoru speaking about humanity as
> > the "Lilim" and in the second person, not including himself.
> > Is it that obvious in the original?
>
> Well Kaoru should call mankind "Lilim". That is what they are
> after all, however apparently in the original ADV sub it's
> translated as "humans".
Good that they changed it. It makes Shinji look a lot more stupid, which
_does_ fit.
> They also TOTALLY mistranslated the title of episode 26.
> They translated it "The Beast Who Shouted "I" At the Heart
> of the World".
OK, that's not so good. How many occurences of similar things are there?
Is there a list?
> It should of course be "The Beast Who Shouted Love At the
> Heart of the World." which is a SF story by Harlan Ellison.
> As we all know Anno likes to title his ending episodes after
> SF titles.
>
> There really is no excuse for that last one. Not only does it
> totally change the meaning of the title but it also completely
> destroys the reference.
Maybe we just do not understand what was meant with this change. If
'love' is changed to 'I' in this sentence, generality is changed to
individuality. But exactly the reverse happened in Third Impact.
Maybe they did it on purpose: those who know the original title will
notice the contrast, the irony. But maybe "only" the ambivalence.
Sakaki
At least it's not at all as bad and ADV's dub script of Those who Hunt
Elves. That was horrendous. They changed the characters personalities for
the worse.
Or Manga's Appleseed, where the "bad guys" were magically changed in the
dubbed script to part of the "good guys" team.
Sakaki
Disaster
*Blinks*
Uh, define it.
Disaster
> "Disaster" <disa...@disfanfic.net> wrote:
> > "Michael Wignall" <wi...@evangelion.com> wrote:
> > > "Rudolf Polzer" <AntiATFiel...@durchnull.de> wrote:
> > >
> > > The point is that there was no need for a translation at all. The
> > > Japanese VA's were told to say the English word "Children".
> > > They say "Children" in the original Japanese! It was written as
> > > "tekikakusha" which translates to "qualified / adequate person",
> > > not to "Children" at all. They was no need to do any translation
> > > though in that the word was already in English, they were already
> > > using the English word "Children" and they meant to use the English
> > > word "Children", they knew it was grammatically incorrect for
> > > most of the pilots, which is why they used it!
> >
> > No, they used it because GAINAX told them to.
>
> So far I have yet to see any evidence that this is true. In fact
> I highly doubt it is true becuase some "Offical Gainax" publications
> such as "2015: The last year of Rouji Kaji" have lines in them like;
> "Think about the meaning of the term CHILDREN".
I don't pretend to understand why they did it.
> > > > In English you have the choice: you can write 'first "Children"' and
> > > > 'first child', perhaps 'first Children' (capitalized C). IMHO they
> are
> > > > all correct.
> > >
> > > "Child" isn't correct at all in my opinion. The title of the pilots
> > > is already in English. It is given as "Children" in English. If we
> > > are talking subtitles here then it is really just wrong. You hear
> > > the character say "Children" yet it is subtitled "Child". No matter
> > > how you look at it that is wrong.
> >
> > Yer right, they should not have screwed up the word in the first place.
>
> It was intentional. It is gramatically correct in Rei's case.
No it isn't!
> > > > > Also IIRC a lot of references to "God" were made in
> > > > > in sub that weren't actually in the original
> > > >
> > > > Example?
> > >
> > > Ok well I couldn't remember any off the top of my head, so
> > > I had to look this up. In (the original) episoide 07 Misato says
> > > "We'd better do something other than wait for that miracle."
> > > In ADV's dub she says "Acts of men are better than acts of
> > > God!"
> >
> > Again, talk to GAINAX.
>
> Gainax don't care about the western release. Nor should they.
> The fact remains that it was changed from the original. I am not
> interested in an ADV "interpretation" of the original, I am interested
> in the original.
Yes GAINAX does, otherwise they would not have insisted on so much
"parenting" of the project. If you are interested in the original, great,
get the original. Not stopping you.
> > > They also TOTALLY mistranslated the title of episode 26.
> > > They translated it "The Beast Who Shouted "I" At the Heart
> > > of the World".
> >
> > GAINAX
> >
> > > It should of course be "The Beast Who Shouted Love At the
> > > Heart of the World." which is a SF story by Harlan Ellison.
> > > As we all know Anno likes to title his ending episodes after
> > > SF titles.
> >
> > Pfft, GAINAX.
> >
> > > There really is no excuse for that last one. Not only does it
> > > totally change the meaning of the title but it also completely
> > > destroys the reference.
> >
> > I'm not saying it again.
>
> Right so Anno gave permission to totally destroy the meaning of
> his reference to Harlan Ellison's story? I don't think so.
*Smirks*
He is a fruit cake! Not as far fetched as you think.
Disaster
a
> few people would care about. So they dubbed it child, they did this simply
> to make it sound better to the englsih audience, nothing more. They also
> changed a few lines (acts of men are better...) probably to get a better
> emotional response by the listener. Although all your reasons for being a
> bit peeved are perfectly valid you must understand that these things were
> changed for the better not the worse.
>
> Anyways, to sum it up. Most people want the story of Evangelion retold in
> english, they don't mind if a few lines are changed to emmit more emotion
or
> become grammatically correct
Don't ignore the fact that those alterations are due to the difficulties in
translation a lot of them time. The job requires the translation of the
message that each line is trying to get accross. Not the actualy words.
Disaster
> "GearType2" <Gear...@sorryspammers.com> wrote:
> <Snip>
> >
> > The title I'll give ya, but sorry to say the rest is just
> > piddly crap only a few people would care about.
>
> Anyone who cares about the integrity of the original
> story would care about such things.
Which is why the message is translated, not the words.
> > So they dubbed it child, they did this simply to make
> > it sound better to the englsih audience, nothing more.
>
> And to completely remove any meaning it had. It is suppose
> to sound weird, that is the point of using the English word
> "Children" and not "Child".
It's a screw up, get over it. :P
> > They also changed a few lines (acts of men are better...)
> > probably to get a better emotional response by the listener.
>
> It's not their job to "get a better response from the listener".
> They have no idea at all what those scenes are supposed to
> mean. What the purpose of a line is. They didn't create the
> show, so why should they change lines just becuase they think
> it sounds better?
1) It's in there best interested to get a better response from their
audience.
2) They have a much better idea then we do if only because of their links to
and work with the original creators.
3) They corrected the line, not change it.
> > Although all your reasons for being a bit peeved are perfectly
> > valid you must understand that these things were changed
> > for the better not the worse.
>
> I understand that the intention may have been a good one, however
> I think the result was bad, and overall the process was misguided.
Your perception is fogged and your ridicule misplaced.
> > Anyways, to sum it up. Most people want the story of
> > Evangelion retold in english, they don't mind if a few lines
> > are changed to emmit more emotion or become grammatically
> > correct
>
> I don't think most people want that at all. Most people want
> to watch the original story, unchanged by a distributor.
Well, I'm happy with the explanation that ADV gave me of NGE.
Michael Wignall
> > So far I have yet to see any evidence that this is true. In fact
> > I highly doubt it is true becuase some "Offical Gainax" publications
> > such as "2015: The last year of Rouji Kaji" have lines in them like;
> > "Think about the meaning of the term CHILDREN".
>
> I don't pretend to understand why they did it.
Perhaps becuase they didn't.
> > > Yer right, they should not have screwed up the word in the first
place.
> >
> > It was intentional. It is gramatically correct in Rei's case.
>
> No it isn't!
Yes it is. There are multiple Rei's. Rei is the "First Children".
"First Child" would be gramatically incorrect in her case.
> > Right so Anno gave permission to totally destroy the meaning of
> > his reference to Harlan Ellison's story? I don't think so.
>
> *Smirks*
> He is a fruit cake! Not as far fetched as you think.
Yes it is far fetched. ADV were wrong. They made a mistake.
It wasn't authorised no matter how much you say it was. ADV
took liberties with the original story, they changed aspects of
the original story. I won't even get into the video covers here;
"children born _exactly_ 9 months after the SI", "The First
Impact killing off the dinosaurs". All of that is plain wrong.
ADV did a poor job on the technical side of making sure
that had accurate details. I didn't think that dub was that
bad, but some of the translations and information that
put out was simply terrible.
Disaster
> "Disaster" <disa...@disfanfic.net> wrote:
> > "Michael Wignall" <wi...@evangelion.com> wrote:
> > > "Disaster" <disa...@disfanfic.net> wrote:
> <Snip>
> > > So far I have yet to see any evidence that this is true. In fact
> > > I highly doubt it is true becuase some "Offical Gainax" publications
> > > such as "2015: The last year of Rouji Kaji" have lines in them like;
> > > "Think about the meaning of the term CHILDREN".
> >
> > I don't pretend to understand why they did it.
>
> Perhaps becuase they didn't.
You wouldn't be complaining about it if it did not happen.
> > > It was intentional. It is gramatically correct in Rei's case.
> >
> > No it isn't!
>
> Yes it is. There are multiple Rei's. Rei is the "First Children".
> "First Child" would be gramatically incorrect in her case.
She's got a lot of clones of herself, doesn't mean you consider them all
like that. Rei is the reference to the Child with Lilith's soul, Yui's body
blah blah. Those other hunks of flesh in the big juice cup are just that.
They are waiting there to take over as the body of the Child. Rei is
singular, there is only one Rei.
> > > Right so Anno gave permission to totally destroy the meaning of
> > > his reference to Harlan Ellison's story? I don't think so.
> >
> > *Smirks*
> > He is a fruit cake! Not as far fetched as you think.
>
> Yes it is far fetched. ADV were wrong. They made a mistake.
They were told to then. In which case you are agreeing with me that it is
GAINAX's fault.
> It wasn't authorised no matter how much you say it was.
I didn't, Matt Greenfield did!
> ADV
> took liberties with the original story, they changed aspects of
> the original story.
They are in the business of translating Anime, you expect them to keep it
all the same? What would be the point? You are over-reacting to situations
where they did the best that they could.
> I won't even get into the video covers here;
Good, cause were not talking about those.
> "children born _exactly_ 9 months after the SI", "The First
> Impact killing off the dinosaurs". All of that is plain wrong.
Well, yeah, but as you said, not going there.
> ADV did a poor job on the technical side of making sure
> that had accurate details. I didn't think that dub was that
> bad, but some of the translations and information that
> put out was simply terrible.
Wiggy, there are parts that ADV did not want to put out, if that helps you
somewhat. I'm totaly serious about GAINAX pushing buttons.
Michael Wignall
> "Michael Wignall" <wi...@evangelion.com> wrote:
> > "GearType2" <Gear...@sorryspammers.com> wrote:
> > <Snip>
> > > it sound better to the englsih audience, nothing more.
> >
> > And to completely remove any meaning it had. It is suppose
> > to sound weird, that is the point of using the English word
> > "Children" and not "Child".
>
> It's a screw up, get over it. :P
By ADV. Yes.
> > > They also changed a few lines (acts of men are better...)
> > > probably to get a better emotional response by the listener.
> >
> > It's not their job to "get a better response from the listener".
> > They have no idea at all what those scenes are supposed to
> > mean. What the purpose of a line is. They didn't create the
> > show, so why should they change lines just becuase they think
> > it sounds better?
>
> 1) It's in there best interested to get a better response
> from their audience.
It is their job to simply make the anime accessible to western
audience. Not to change things as they see fit.
> 2) They have a much better idea then we do if only because
> of their links to and work with the original creators.
I thought that change was terrible. It makes you think of
reference to "God" in Eva where there aren't any. It only
adds more fuel to the fire that it is a "religious" anime, which
it is not.
> 3) They corrected the line, not change it.
The changed it completely. Like a lot of other times. There
was no "correction" needed. They could have just done a direct
translation.
> > I don't think most people want that at all. Most people want
> > to watch the original story, unchanged by a distributor.
>
> Well, I'm happy with the explanation that ADV gave
> me of NGE.
You are welcome to be happy about that. Just don't expect
anyone seriously discussing Eva to respect that. Eva was
created by Gainax not ADV. I love Eva, thus I love the work
Gaianx produced. Not the work of some middle man.
Michael Wignall
> "Michael Wignall" <wi...@evangelion.com> wrote:
> > "Disaster" <disa...@disfanfic.net> wrote:
> > > "Michael Wignall" <wi...@evangelion.com> wrote:
> > > > "Disaster" <disa...@disfanfic.net> wrote:
> > <Snip>
> > > > So far I have yet to see any evidence that this is true. In fact
publications
> > > > such as "2015: The last year of Rouji Kaji" have lines in them
like;
> > > > "Think about the meaning of the term CHILDREN".
> > >
> > > I don't pretend to understand why they did it.
> >
>
> You wouldn't be complaining about it if it did not happen.
We are talking about why Gainax chose Children, not about
why ADV mistakenly changed it.
> > Yes it is. There are multiple Rei's. Rei is the "First Children".
> > "First Child" would be gramatically incorrect in her case.
>
> She's got a lot of clones of herself, doesn't mean you consider them all
> like that. Rei is the reference to the Child with Lilith's soul, Yui's
body
> blah blah. Those other hunks of flesh in the big juice cup are just that.
> They are waiting there to take over as the body of the Child. Rei is
> singular, there is only one Rei.
There are many First Children. Rei-001, Rei-002, Rei-002.
To call Rei the "First Child" is grammatically incorrect because
there are multiple Reis.
> > Yes it is far fetched. ADV were wrong. They made a mistake.
>
> They were told to then. In which case you are agreeing with
> me that it is GAINAX's fault.
I'm sorry but you have yet to provide any evidence to show that
Gainax told ADV to put the _wrong_ episode title in.
> > It wasn't authorised no matter how much you say it was.
>
> I didn't, Matt Greenfield did!
Well considering Matt Greenfield was the one who actually
made the mistakes I wouldn't expect him to admit liability.
Again you have never answered me when I asked if Matt
told you that Gainax authorised the specific instances I have
mentioned here. You have just said that Matt did an "authorised"
translation. Well he was in charge of it, but as we have seen
they did a lot of things wrong, that certainly wasn't approved
as accurate by Gainax. His is the "authorised" on in that they
paid for the licence, but that's about it.
> > ADV took liberties with the original story, they changed
> > aspects of the original story.
>
> They are in the business of translating Anime, you expect them
> to keep it all the same? What would be the point? You are
> over-reacting to situations where they did the best that they
> could.
I expect them to keep to true to the original. If that was their
best then it isn't good enough. There are other companies out
there that do original series far more justice that ADV did Eva.
> > I won't even get into the video covers here;
>
> Good, cause were not talking about those.
Well we might as well now.
> > "children born _exactly_ 9 months after the SI", "The First
> > Impact killing off the dinosaurs". All of that is plain wrong.
>
> Well, yeah, but as you said, not going there.
We are now. They were flat out wrong here. How are you
defending that?
> > ADV did a poor job on the technical side of making sure
> > that had accurate details. I didn't think that dub was that
> > bad, but some of the translations and information that
> > put out was simply terrible.
>
> Wiggy, there are parts that ADV did not want to put out,
> if that helps you somewhat. I'm totaly serious about
> GAINAX pushing buttons.
That ADV didn't want to show it as it only reinforces my comment
that they didn't care about the original show. They wanted to
produce "their" interpretation of it. I am not interested in a but
of American guys interpretation of Eva. I am interested in Anno's
original Eva.
Watchman
Michael Wignall wrote:
>
<SniPpeD>
> > > They also TOTALLY mistranslated the title of episode 26.
> > > They translated it "The Beast Who Shouted "I" At the Heart
> > > of the World".
> >
> > GAINAX
> >
> > > It should of course be "The Beast Who Shouted Love At the
> > > Heart of the World." which is a SF story by Harlan Ellison.
> > > As we all know Anno likes to title his ending episodes after
> > > SF titles.
> >
> > Pfft, GAINAX.
> >
> > > There really is no excuse for that last one. Not only does it
> > > totally change the meaning of the title but it also completely
> > > destroys the reference.
> >
> > I'm not saying it again.
>
> Right so Anno gave permission to totally destroy the meaning of
> his reference to Harlan Ellison's story? I don't think so.
>
Changing one word totally destroyed it? Yet anyone who'd read said story
recognised the reference. Hmmm... interesting...
--
'Anyone who isn't confused doesn't really know what's going on'
Michael Wignall
news:3CE08564...@SPAMPHOBICwhyalla.net.au...
> Michael Wignall wrote:
> >
<Snip>
> > Right so Anno gave permission to totally destroy the meaning of
> > his reference to Harlan Ellison's story? I don't think so.
> >
> Changing one word totally destroyed it? Yet anyone who'd read
> said story recognised the reference. Hmmm... interesting...
Anyone who hadn't read it though, and was looking to see where
Anno got that title from, would have a hard time discovering it.
Again the point is that it was changed, and wrongly so.
David Scarlett
>
> Yes it is far fetched. ADV were wrong. They made a mistake.
> It wasn't authorised no matter how much you say it was.
I agree. However I believe Gainax should have specifically told them it
was "love" and not "I", because in the Japanese it is ambiguous, and
seeming more like "I" than "love".
The problems were that the Japanese word for "love" is "ai", which is
pronounced the same as "I". And we know Anno liked to write in Katakana
(Japanese alphabet used mainly for foreign words) rather than Kanji
(Chinese alphabet used for or in most Japanese words).
ie. "I" would normally be written with two Katakana, 'a' and 'i'. "Love"
would normally be written with one Kanji, however Anno wrote it (along
with the rest of the sentence) using Katakana.
Then again, I haven't actually seen the sentence written in Japanese,
this is all based on hearsay....but it's also the only plausible
explaination... ^ ^;
--
David Scarlett
dscarlett [AT] optushome [DOT] com [DOT] au
What did the Zen Buddhist say to the hotdog vendor?
"Make me one with everything."
Michael Wignall
"David Scarlett" <lo...@my.signature> wrote in message
news:3ce0c9cf$0$2523$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...<Snip>
>
> Then again, I haven't actually seen the sentence written in Japanese,
> this is all based on hearsay....but it's also the only plausible
> explaination... ^ ^;
This is just an example though of the fact that ADV didn't actually
understand what they were translating at all. Obviously they didn't
get the reference else they wouldn't have translated it incorrectly.
I agree that is probably what happened, however if they were aware
of Anno's penchant for using SF titles then they wouldn't have translated
"Saishuu Wa Sekai no Chuushin de Ai o Sakenda Kemono" as anything but
"Final Episode The Beast That Shouted Love at the Heart of the World".
Rudolf Polzer
> "Rudolf Polzer" <AntiATFiel...@durchnull.de> wrote:
> > Scripsit illa aut ille Disaster <disa...@disfanfic.net>:
> > [...]
> > > > meaning in English. Not that it still sounds funny.
> > >
> > > If it's a name, then you can do whatever you can do to a name to it if
> you
> > > want. However, they were not calling the 3rd child, "3rd Children," his
> name
> > > was Shinji Ikari.
> >
> > I did not really mean 'name'... what's the correct English word for
> > 'Bezeichnung'?
>
> *Blinks*
> Uh, define it.
Let me call it a name one of a group of things, which can be applied to
each thing itself.
Something like 'natural number', which stands not only for 1, but also
2, 3, 4... but only for one at once.
And that's like 'Children' is used.
Disaster
> > > 'Bezeichnung'?
> >
> > *Blinks*
> > Uh, define it.
>
> Let me call it a name one of a group of things, which can be applied to
> each thing itself.
>
> Something like 'natural number', which stands not only for 1, but also
> 2, 3, 4... but only for one at once.
>
> And that's like 'Children' is used.
ummmmm, Children is purely a plural term. It means more then one child. It
means all of the "child's" at once too.
Disaster
> "Disaster" <disa...@disfanfic.net> wrote:
> > "Michael Wignall" <wi...@evangelion.com> wrote:
> > > "Disaster" <disa...@disfanfic.net> wrote:
> > > > "Michael Wignall" <wi...@evangelion.com> wrote:
> > > > > "Disaster" <disa...@disfanfic.net> wrote:
> > > <Snip>
> > > > > So far I have yet to see any evidence that this is true. In fact
> > > > > I highly doubt it is true because some "Official Gainax"
> > > > > publications such as "2015: The last year of Rouji Kaji"
> > > > > have lines in them like;
> > > > > "Think about the meaning of the term CHILDREN".
> > > >
> > > > I don't pretend to understand why they did it.
> > >
> > > Perhaps because they didn't.
> >
> > You wouldn't be complaining about it if it did not happen.
>
> We are talking about why Gainax chose Children, not about
> why ADV mistakenly changed it.
But ADV did not change it by mistake, they were told to. So you are saying
that GAINAX originally screwed it up.
> > > Yes it is. There are multiple Rei's. Rei is the "First Children".
> > > "First Child" would be gramatically incorrect in her case.
> >
> > She's got a lot of clones of herself, doesn't mean you consider them all
> > like that. Rei is the reference to the Child with Lilith's soul, Yui's
> > body blah blah. Those other hunks of flesh in the big juice cup are just
that.
> > They are waiting there to take over as the body of the Child. Rei is
> > singular, there is only one Rei.
>
> There are many First Children. Rei-001, Rei-002, Rei-002.
> To call Rei the "First Child" is grammatically incorrect because
> there are multiple Reis.
No, there is one 1st child. Rei, when Rei dies, another clone wakes up and
takes her place as the 1st Childs body.
> > > Yes it is far fetched. ADV were wrong. They made a mistake.
> >
> > They were told to then. In which case you are agreeing with
> > me that it is GAINAX's fault.
>
> I'm sorry but you have yet to provide any evidence to show that
> Gainax told ADV to put the _wrong_ episode title in.
Pfft, you have yet to prove to me that the original said "children."
> > > It wasn't authorised no matter how much you say it was.
> >
> > I didn't, Matt Greenfield did!
>
> Well considering Matt Greenfield was the one who actually
> made the mistakes I wouldn't expect him to admit liability.
> Again you have never answered me when I asked if Matt
> told you that Gainax authorised the specific instances I have
> mentioned here. You have just said that Matt did an "authorised"
> translation. Well he was in charge of it, but as we have seen
> they did a lot of things wrong, that certainly wasn't approved
> as accurate by Gainax. His is the "authorised" on in that they
> paid for the licence, but that's about it.
Why don't you ask him then? Or call up GAINAX and get the story from them?
> > > ADV took liberties with the original story, they changed
> > > aspects of the original story.
> >
> > They are in the business of translating Anime, you expect them
> > to keep it all the same? What would be the point? You are
> > over-reacting to situations where they did the best that they
> > could.
>
> I expect them to keep to true to the original. If that was their
> best then it isn't good enough. There are other companies out
> there that do original series far more justice that ADV did Eva.
That's your misinformed opinion. As GAINAX wanted NGE done the way that ADV
did it, obviously it is the "true" that had to be kept to.
> > > I won't even get into the video covers here;
> >
> > Good, cause were not talking about those.
>
> Well we might as well now.
O_o;;;;;;
Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!
> > > "children born _exactly_ 9 months after the SI", "The First
> > > Impact killing off the dinosaurs". All of that is plain wrong.
> >
> > Well, yeah, but as you said, not going there.
>
> We are now. They were flat out wrong here. How are you
> defending that?
>
> > > ADV did a poor job on the technical side of making sure
> > > that had accurate details. I didn't think that dub was that
> > > bad, but some of the translations and information that
> > > put out was simply terrible.
> >
> > Wiggy, there are parts that ADV did not want to put out,
> > if that helps you somewhat. I'm totaly serious about
> > GAINAX pushing buttons.
>
> That ADV didn't want to show it as it only reinforces my comment
> that they didn't care about the original show. They wanted to
> produce "their" interpretation of it. I am not interested in a but
> of American guys interpretation of Eva. I am interested in Anno's
> original Eva.
ARG okay so you totaly took that the wrong way. It's okay, I thought you
were smart, let me try to explain it properly :P
ADV did not want to put in the corruptions that GAINAX insisted on.
Disaster
> > It wasn't authorised no matter how much you say it was.
>
> I agree. However I believe Gainax should have specifically told them it
> was "love" and not "I", because in the Japanese it is ambiguous, and
> seeming more like "I" than "love".
>
> The problems were that the Japanese word for "love" is "ai", which is
> pronounced the same as "I". And we know Anno liked to write in Katakana
> (Japanese alphabet used mainly for foreign words) rather than Kanji
> (Chinese alphabet used for or in most Japanese words).
>
> ie. "I" would normally be written with two Katakana, 'a' and 'i'. "Love"
> would normally be written with one Kanji, however Anno wrote it (along
> with the rest of the sentence) using Katakana.
>
> Then again, I haven't actually seen the sentence written in Japanese,
> this is all based on hearsay....but it's also the only plausible
> explaination... ^ ^;
I like it!
Disaster
> >
> > Then again, I haven't actually seen the sentence written in Japanese,
> > this is all based on hearsay....but it's also the only plausible
> > explaination... ^ ^;
>
> This is just an example though of the fact that ADV didn't actually
> understand what they were translating at all. Obviously they didn't
> get the reference else they wouldn't have translated it incorrectly.
> I agree that is probably what happened, however if they were aware
> of Anno's penchant for using SF titles then they wouldn't have translated
> "Saishuu Wa Sekai no Chuushin de Ai o Sakenda Kemono" as anything but
> "Final Episode The Beast That Shouted Love at the Heart of the World".
Bah, that's pretty weak! :P
Disaster
LOL
Disaster
> "Watchman" <str...@SPAMPHOBICwhyalla.net.au> wrote:
> > Michael Wignall wrote:
> > >
> <Snip>
> > > Right so Anno gave permission to totally destroy the meaning of
> > > his reference to Harlan Ellison's story? I don't think so.
> > >
> > Changing one word totally destroyed it? Yet anyone who'd read
> > said story recognised the reference. Hmmm... interesting...
>
> Anyone who hadn't read it though, and was looking to see where
> Anno got that title from, would have a hard time discovering it.
>
> Again the point is that it was changed, and wrongly so.
You know, I still don't recognize the title.
Rudolf Polzer
> > > > 'Bezeichnung'?
> > >
> > > *Blinks*
> > > Uh, define it.
> >
> > Let me call it a name one of a group of things, which can be applied to
> > each thing itself.
> >
> > Something like 'natural number', which stands not only for 1, but also
> > 2, 3, 4... but only for one at once.
> >
> > And that's like 'Children' is used.
>
> ummmmm, Children is purely a plural term. It means more then one child. It
> means all of the "child's" at once too.
That's where it comes from, not what it is in NGE (at least for 2nd, 3rd
etc.). Exactly that's the conflict to the English language.
Michael Wignall
> "Michael Wignall" <wi...@evangelion.com> wrote:
> > "Disaster" <disa...@disfanfic.net> wrote:
<Snip>
> > why ADV mistakenly changed it.
>
> But ADV did not change it by mistake, they were told to.
> So you are saying that GAINAX originally screwed it up.
I have seen nothing to suggest that Gainax told ADV to change it.
Franking I find it very hard to believe that they did considering the
term "Children" features in official publications and the like.
> > There are many First Children. Rei-001, Rei-002, Rei-002.
> > To call Rei the "First Child" is grammatically incorrect because
> > there are multiple Reis.
>
> No, there is one 1st child. Rei, when Rei dies, another clone
> wakes up and takes her place as the 1st Childs body.
You can keep saying that as many times as you want, but it
doesn't make it true.
There are multiple Reis, this is a fact of the series, we see
them all at one point. The are more than one Rei. There
_are_ Reis, plural, this as a singular Rei is a child, many
Reis are children.
> > I'm sorry but you have yet to provide any evidence to show that
> > Gainax told ADV to put the _wrong_ episode title in.
>
> Pfft, you have yet to prove to me that the original said "children."
Listen to the original, you can hear them say children. It is quite
clear. If you don't want to believe it then that's your own problem.
> > Well considering Matt Greenfield was the one who actually
> > made the mistakes I wouldn't expect him to admit liability.
> > Again you have never answered me when I asked if Matt
> > told you that Gainax authorised the specific instances I have
> > mentioned here. You have just said that Matt did an "authorised"
> > translation. Well he was in charge of it, but as we have seen
> > they did a lot of things wrong, that certainly wasn't approved
> > as accurate by Gainax. His is the "authorised" on in that they
> > paid for the licence, but that's about it.
>
> Why don't you ask him then?
Becuase as I said, considering he was the one who made the
mistake I wouldn't expect him to admit liability.
> Or call up GAINAX and get the story from them?
Gainax don't care about Eva anymore. They have moved on.
> > > They are in the business of translating Anime, you expect them
> > > to keep it all the same? What would be the point? You are
> > > over-reacting to situations where they did the best that they
> > > could.
> >
> > I expect them to keep to true to the original. If that was their
> > best then it isn't good enough. There are other companies out
> > there that do original series far more justice that ADV did Eva.
>
> That's your misinformed opinion. As GAINAX wanted NGE
> done the way that ADV did it, obviously it is the "true" that had
> to be kept to.
They didn't want Eva done the way ADV did it, ADV just paided
the most money for the rights to do it.
> ADV did not want to put in the corruptions that GAINAX insisted on.
I fail to see how they are "corruptions" when Gainax produced the
original. Anything ADV did to change the original is by definition
a "corruption" not the other way around.
The Phinn
> "Disaster" <disa...@disfanfic.net> wrote in message
> news:ue4oaig...@corp.supernews.com...
> > "Michael Wignall" <wi...@evangelion.com> wrote:
> > > "Disaster" <disa...@disfanfic.net> wrote:
> > > There are many First Children. Rei-001, Rei-002, Rei-002.
> > > To call Rei the "First Child" is grammatically incorrect because
> > > there are multiple Reis.
> >
> > No, there is one 1st child. Rei, when Rei dies, another clone
> > wakes up and takes her place as the 1st Childs body.
>
> You can keep saying that as many times as you want, but it
> doesn't make it true.
>
> There are multiple Reis, this is a fact of the series, we see
> them all at one point. The are more than one Rei. There
> _are_ Reis, plural, this as a singular Rei is a child, many
> Reis are children.
There's only one Rei, just she has many different bodies e.g. the three (or
was it four?) she used and the load she had spare in the tank before Ritsuko
destroyed them all.
The Phinn
--
ICQ# 76969919
http://ion.ddts.net/~phinn/
Currently watching:
Full Metal Panic
Serial Experiments Lain
Excel Saga
Fushigi na Umi no Nadia
Yami no Matsuei
Kido Senkan Nadesico
Chobits
Michael Wignall
news:UIuE8.6710$925.1...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> "Michael Wignall" <wi...@evangelion.com> wrote in message
> news:AHtE8.834$C4.6...@ozemail.com.au...
> > "Disaster" <disa...@disfanfic.net> wrote in message
> > news:ue4oaig...@corp.supernews.com...
> > > "Michael Wignall" <wi...@evangelion.com> wrote:
> > > No, there is one 1st child. Rei, when Rei dies, another clone
> > > wakes up and takes her place as the 1st Childs body.
> >
> > You can keep saying that as many times as you want, but it
> > doesn't make it true.
> >
> > There are multiple Reis, this is a fact of the series, we see
> > them all at one point. The are more than one Rei. There
> > _are_ Reis, plural, this as a singular Rei is a child, many
> > Reis are children.
>
> There's only one Rei, just she has many different bodies e.g.
> the three (or was it four?) she used and the load she had
> spare in the tank before Ritsuko destroyed them all.
There is only one "soul" and that soul is of Lilith, but there
are multiple Reis. Rei-001, Rei-002, Rei-003, etc.
We see all the of the "woken" Reis stand over Gendou
in EoE. There are three Rei's there, three first Children.
Watchman
Disaster wrote:
>
> "Michael Wignall" <wi...@evangelion.com> wrote:
> > "Watchman" <str...@SPAMPHOBICwhyalla.net.au> wrote:
> > > Michael Wignall wrote:
> > > >
> > <Snip>
> > > > Right so Anno gave permission to totally destroy the meaning of
> > > > his reference to Harlan Ellison's story? I don't think so.
> > > >
> > > Changing one word totally destroyed it? Yet anyone who'd read
> > > said story recognised the reference. Hmmm... interesting...
> >
> > Anyone who hadn't read it though, and was looking to see where
> > Anno got that title from, would have a hard time discovering it.
>
Fair enough... but how many people would?
Disaster
It
> > means all of the "child's" at once too.
>
> That's where it comes from, not what it is in NGE (at least for 2nd, 3rd
> etc.). Exactly that's the conflict to the English language.
*Shrug*
I like it, can almost get away with anything! ;P
Disaster
> "Disaster" <disa...@disfanfic.net> wrote:
> > "Michael Wignall" <wi...@evangelion.com> wrote:
> > > "Disaster" <disa...@disfanfic.net> wrote:
> <Snip>
> > > We are talking about why Gainax chose Children, not about
> > > why ADV mistakenly changed it.
> >
> > But ADV did not change it by mistake, they were told to.
> > So you are saying that GAINAX originally screwed it up.
>
> I have seen nothing to suggest that Gainax told ADV to change it.
> Franking I find it very hard to believe that they did considering the
> term "Children" features in official publications and the like.
I think it's obvious that they are merely trying to cover up their mistake
by blaming it all on ADV. They are simply calling their use of "children" as
a special circumstance. But you need cause for that kind of usage and it's
not there!
> > > There are many First Children. Rei-001, Rei-002, Rei-002.
> > > To call Rei the "First Child" is grammatically incorrect because
> > > there are multiple Reis.
> >
> > No, there is one 1st child. Rei, when Rei dies, another clone
> > wakes up and takes her place as the 1st Childs body.
>
> You can keep saying that as many times as you want, but it
> doesn't make it true.
>
> There are multiple Reis, this is a fact of the series, we see
> them all at one point. The are more than one Rei. There
> _are_ Reis, plural, this as a singular Rei is a child, many
> Reis are children.
Tsk, they are not all soul bearing Rei's, thus they are not truly Rei.
Therefore, only the active Rei that has the soul of Lilith is truly Rei.
> > > I'm sorry but you have yet to provide any evidence to show that
> > > Gainax told ADV to put the _wrong_ episode title in.
> >
> > Pfft, you have yet to prove to me that the original said "children."
>
> Listen to the original, you can hear them say children. It is quite
> clear. If you don't want to believe it then that's your own problem.
Well that's the problem isn't it? I can't, therefore it's up to you to prove
it to me. The cloestest to original that I have is a SUB of tape 2. Still in
Sydney.
> > > Well considering Matt Greenfield was the one who actually
> > > made the mistakes I wouldn't expect him to admit liability.
> > > Again you have never answered me when I asked if Matt
> > > told you that Gainax authorised the specific instances I have
> > > mentioned here. You have just said that Matt did an "authorised"
> > > translation. Well he was in charge of it, but as we have seen
> > > they did a lot of things wrong, that certainly wasn't approved
> > > as accurate by Gainax. His is the "authorised" on in that they
> > > paid for the licence, but that's about it.
> >
> > Why don't you ask him then?
>
> Becuase as I said, considering he was the one who made the
> mistake I wouldn't expect him to admit liability.
Bah, you have not even given him a chance yet. Go ask him and let him
explain himself to you.
> > Or call up GAINAX and get the story from them?
>
> Gainax don't care about Eva anymore. They have moved on.
So, that does not impact on my suggestion that you go ask them.
> > > > They are in the business of translating Anime, you expect them
> > > > to keep it all the same? What would be the point? You are
> > > > over-reacting to situations where they did the best that they
> > > > could.
> > >
> > > I expect them to keep to true to the original. If that was their
> > > best then it isn't good enough. There are other companies out
> > > there that do original series far more justice that ADV did Eva.
> >
> > That's your misinformed opinion. As GAINAX wanted NGE
> > done the way that ADV did it, obviously it is the "true" that had
> > to be kept to.
>
> They didn't want Eva done the way ADV did it, ADV just paided
> the most money for the rights to do it.
It's part of the conditions Michael. ADV forked out the most cash and they
still had to take orders.
> > ADV did not want to put in the corruptions that GAINAX insisted on.
>
> I fail to see how they are "corruptions" when Gainax produced the
> original. Anything ADV did to change the original is by definition
> a "corruption" not the other way around.
Well as GAINAX was the one suggesting that ADV make the very alterations
that you are calling corruptions, one would conclude that GAINAX is the one
you are blaming for the corruptions.
Disaster
> "Michael Wignall" <wi...@evangelion.com> wrote:
> > "Disaster" <disa...@disfanfic.net> wrote:
> > > "Michael Wignall" <wi...@evangelion.com> wrote:
> > > > "Disaster" <disa...@disfanfic.net> wrote:
> > > > There are many First Children. Rei-001, Rei-002, Rei-002.
> > > > To call Rei the "First Child" is grammatically incorrect because
> > > > there are multiple Reis.
> > >
> > > No, there is one 1st child. Rei, when Rei dies, another clone
> > > wakes up and takes her place as the 1st Childs body.
> >
> > You can keep saying that as many times as you want, but it
> > doesn't make it true.
> >
> > There are multiple Reis, this is a fact of the series, we see
> > them all at one point. The are more than one Rei. There
> > _are_ Reis, plural, this as a singular Rei is a child, many
> > Reis are children.
>
> There's only one Rei, just she has many different bodies e.g. the three
(or
> was it four?) she used and the load she had spare in the tank before
Ritsuko
> destroyed them all.
I appreciate the help Phinn, just becareful though, Michael has a LOT to say
where our beloved Rei is concerned. We have been talking about her for many
years.
Disaster
> "The Phinn" <thep...@DIESPAMDIEsdf.lonestar.org> wrote:
> > "Michael Wignall" <wi...@evangelion.com> wrote:
> > > "Disaster" <disa...@disfanfic.net> wrote:
> > > > No, there is one 1st child. Rei, when Rei dies, another clone
> > > > wakes up and takes her place as the 1st Childs body.
> > >
> > > You can keep saying that as many times as you want, but it
> > > doesn't make it true.
> > >
> > > There are multiple Reis, this is a fact of the series, we see
> > > them all at one point. The are more than one Rei. There
> > > _are_ Reis, plural, this as a singular Rei is a child, many
> > > Reis are children.
> >
> > There's only one Rei, just she has many different bodies e.g.
> > the three (or was it four?) she used and the load she had
> > spare in the tank before Ritsuko destroyed them all.
>
> There is only one "soul" and that soul is of Lilith, but there
> are multiple Reis. Rei-001, Rei-002, Rei-003, etc.
> We see all the of the "woken" Reis stand over Gendou
> in EoE. There are three Rei's there, three first Children.
Bah, you are stretching the facts here to far! If the clones do not have the
soul then they are not the Rei that is referred to when Rei is thought of.
As The Rei in the mind of Shinji is the Rei in front of him and not the ones
in the tank, Rei is one, and not many. This example holds true from everyone
else in NGE as well, those who know Rei anyhow.
Disaster
> > > Anno got that title from, would have a hard time discovering it.
>
> Fair enough... but how many people would?
I'm one!
Disaster
> > > "GearType2" <Gear...@sorryspammers.com> wrote:
> > > <Snip>
> > > > So they dubbed it child, they did this simply to make
> > > > it sound better to the englsih audience, nothing more.
> > >
> > > And to completely remove any meaning it had. It is suppose
> > > to sound weird, that is the point of using the English word
> > > "Children" and not "Child".
> >
> > It's a screw up, get over it. :P
>
> By ADV. Yes.
Only if you don't know all the facts!
> > > > They also changed a few lines (acts of men are better...)
> > > > probably to get a better emotional response by the listener.
> > >
> > > It's not their job to "get a better response from the listener".
> > > They have no idea at all what those scenes are supposed to
> > > mean. What the purpose of a line is. They didn't create the
> > > show, so why should they change lines just becuase they think
> > > it sounds better?
> >
> > 1) It's in there best interested to get a better response
> > from their audience.
>
> It is their job to simply make the anime accessible to western
> audience. Not to change things as they see fit.
No, it's their job to make that Anime understandable by the Western Anime
community/market so they will buy lots of it so they can buy the next Anime
series.
> > 2) They have a much better idea then we do if only because
> > of their links to and work with the original creators.
>
> I thought that change was terrible. It makes you think of
> reference to "God" in Eva where there aren't any. It only
> adds more fuel to the fire that it is a "religious" anime, which
> it is not.
That is the interpreters mistake, not NGE's problem. Or ADV or even GAINAX.
How often have we had to delve into NGE to find what we are still not quite
sure is the truth? Hell JAE spent a lot of time investigating the religious
references in NGE before it was discovered that they misleading.
> > 3) They corrected the line, not change it.
>
> The changed it completely. Like a lot of other times. There
> was no "correction" needed. They could have just done a direct
> translation.
Which would not have made sense. Thus loosing the whole point of their job.
Or even if it would have made sense good chance that GAINAX told them to
make a change, correction or corruption whatever. You should know that you
can't make a direct translation and keep the flow of the Anime or even
maintain proper meaning.
> > > I don't think most people want that at all. Most people want
> > > to watch the original story, unchanged by a distributor.
> >
> > Well, I'm happy with the explanation that ADV gave
> > me of NGE.
>
> You are welcome to be happy about that. Just don't expect
> anyone seriously discussing Eva to respect that. Eva was
> created by Gainax not ADV. I love Eva, thus I love the work
> Gaianx produced. Not the work of some middle man.
GAINAX would also be a middleman then.
Michael Wignall
> "Michael Wignall" <wi...@evangelion.com> wrote:
> > "Disaster" <disa...@disfanfic.net> wrote:
> > > "Michael Wignall" <wi...@evangelion.com> wrote:
> > > 1) It's in there best interested to get a better response
> > > from their audience.
> >
> > It is their job to simply make the anime accessible to western
> > audience. Not to change things as they see fit.
>
> No, it's their job to make that Anime understandable by the
> Western Anime community/market so they will buy lots of it
> so they can buy the next Anime series.
And in the process they have changed the original story and
made it something different. This something different isn't
the "true" Eva, this something different isn't what I am a
fan of, and to put it bluntly compared to the original
this something different really is rather crap.
> > > 2) They have a much better idea then we do if only because
> > > of their links to and work with the original creators.
> >
> > I thought that change was terrible. It makes you think of
> > reference to "God" in Eva where there aren't any. It only
> > adds more fuel to the fire that it is a "religious" anime, which
> > it is not.
>
> That is the interpreters mistake, not NGE's problem. Or ADV
> or even GAINAX.
It's the translators mistake for blatantly changing lines in the show.
> How often have we had to delve into NGE to find what we
> are still not quite sure is the truth? Hell JAE spent a lot of time
> investigating the religious references in NGE before it was
> discovered that they misleading.
Many times, which only goes to prove my point, no one knows
Eva better than Gainax, thus any "interpretations" made by anyone
else are going to be misinformed half-efforts.
> > > 3) They corrected the line, not change it.
> >
> > The changed it completely. Like a lot of other times. There
> > was no "correction" needed. They could have just done a direct
> > translation.
>
> Which would not have made sense.
"We'd better do something other than wait for that miracle."
That makes perfect sense. There was no need to change it
to: "Acts of men are better than acts of God!"
They ignored the fact that they were supposed to do a simple
translation and wholesale changed the line.
> Thus loosing the whole point of their job. Or even if it would
> have made sense good chance that GAINAX told them to make
> a change, correction or corruption whatever.
You are terribly hypocritical. One moment you are saying that it
is ADV's job to do the translations interpretations themselves and
the next you are saying that Gainax made them do all the changes.
I guess Gainax told them to put completely wrong information on
the video covers too?
> You should know that you can't make a direct translation and
> keep the flow of the Anime or even maintain proper meaning.
I think that above sentence is clear enough. It was _completely_
changed.
> > > Well, I'm happy with the explanation that ADV gave
> > > me of NGE.
> >
> > You are welcome to be happy about that. Just don't expect
> > anyone seriously discussing Eva to respect that. Eva was
> > created by Gainax not ADV. I love Eva, thus I love the work
> > Gaianx produced. Not the work of some middle man.
>
> GAINAX would also be a middleman then.
How so? Gainax created the work.
Michael Wignall
> "Michael Wignall" <wi...@evangelion.com> wrote:
> > "The Phinn" <thep...@DIESPAMDIEsdf.lonestar.org> wrote:
> > > "Michael Wignall" <wi...@evangelion.com> wrote:
> > > There's only one Rei, just she has many different bodies e.g.
> > > the three (or was it four?) she used and the load she had
> > > spare in the tank before Ritsuko destroyed them all.
> >
> > There is only one "soul" and that soul is of Lilith, but there
> > are multiple Reis. Rei-001, Rei-002, Rei-003, etc.
> > We see all the of the "woken" Reis stand over Gendou
> > in EoE. There are three Rei's there, three first Children.
>
> Bah, you are stretching the facts here to far! If the clones
> do not have the soul then they are not the Rei that is
> referred to when Rei is thought of.
According to Ritsuko's controller they are. The clones are
"called" Rei. The multiple Reis are numbered. There are many
Reis. Plural. Children.
http://homepage.powerup.com.au/~wignall/evaremote001.jpg
> As The Rei in the mind of Shinji is the Rei in front of him
> and not the ones in the tank, Rei is one, and not many. This
> example holds true from everyone else in NGE as well, t
> hose who know Rei anyhow.
Everyone else in NGE don't have multiple clones of them sitting
in a tank. Besides as I showed above the clones in the tank
are referred to as "rei" as well. Multiple Reis are listed. Many
First Children.
Again the book "2015: The last year of Rouji Kaji" explicitly
asks the reader to "ponder the meaning of the term "CHILDREN".
Michael Wignall
> "Michael Wignall" <wi...@evangelion.com> wrote:
> > "Disaster" <disa...@disfanfic.net> wrote:
> > > "Michael Wignall" <wi...@evangelion.com> wrote:
> > > But ADV did not change it by mistake, they were told to.
> > > So you are saying that GAINAX originally screwed it up.
> >
> > I have seen nothing to suggest that Gainax told ADV to change it.
> > Franking I find it very hard to believe that they did considering the
> > term "Children" features in official publications and the like.
>
> I think it's obvious that they are merely trying to cover up their
> mistake by blaming it all on ADV. They are simply calling their
> use of "children" as a special circumstance. But you need cause
> for that kind of usage and it's not there!
You are avoiding the question. You stated that ADV were
told to change it. Prove that please.
Also once again it wasn't a mistake, so why would they
want to change it.
> > There are multiple Reis, this is a fact of the series, we see
> > them all at one point. The are more than one Rei. There
> > _are_ Reis, plural, this as a singular Rei is a child, many
> > Reis are children.
>
> Tsk, they are not all soul bearing Rei's, thus they are not truly Rei.
> Therefore, only the active Rei that has the soul of Lilith is truly Rei.
They don't have to have souls to be called Reis. Ritsuko's controller
lists them all calling them Rei-004, Rei-005, Rei-006 etc. There
are multiple Reis.
http://homepage.powerup.com.au/~wignall/evaremote001.jpg
Plural - First Children.
> > Listen to the original, you can hear them say children. It is quite
> > clear. If you don't want to believe it then that's your own problem.
>
> Well that's the problem isn't it? I can't, therefore it's up to you to
prove
> it to me. The cloestest to original that I have is a SUB of tape 2. Still
in
> Sydney.
I don't have to prove anything. I really don't care if you don't
believe it. Anyone who listens to the original will know the
truth, if you can't get your hands on the original dialouge that's
your own problem.
> > Becuase as I said, considering he was the one who made the
> > mistake I wouldn't expect him to admit liability.
>
> Bah, you have not even given him a chance yet. Go ask him
> and let him explain himself to you.
Sure.
> > Gainax don't care about Eva anymore. They have moved on.
>
> So, that does not impact on my suggestion that you go ask them.
No just on the fact that I won't get a response.
> > They didn't want Eva done the way ADV did it, ADV just paided
> > the most money for the rights to do it.
>
> It's part of the conditions Michael. ADV forked out the most
> cash and they still had to take orders.
Not as many as they should have though. They are flat out
wrong in a number of cases. Obviously they just put what
they "thought" was right (on video covers and such) but
in the end was shown the be plainly wrong. They didn't do a
good job Disaster. I don't understand why you are trying to
argue that they did. They were plain lazy in some instances.
Then of course there is the whole "KOA" thing in their Eva
Encyclopaedia. I mean that's just plain poor quality checking.
Even a small amount of checking would make them realise
there is no such thing as a "KOA", that its the English word
"CORE".
> > > ADV did not want to put in the corruptions that GAINAX insisted on.
> >
> > I fail to see how they are "corruptions" when Gainax produced the
> > original. Anything ADV did to change the original is by definition
> > a "corruption" not the other way around.
>
> Well as GAINAX was the one suggesting that ADV make the very
> alterations that you are calling corruptions, one would conclude that
> GAINAX is the one you are blaming for the corruptions.
Once again, saying that Gainax suggested it doesn't make it so.
Please provide some sort of evidence so support your wild
allegations.
Disaster
> "Disaster" <disa...@disfanfic.net> wrote:
> > "Michael Wignall" <wi...@evangelion.com> wrote:
> > > "The Phinn" <thep...@DIESPAMDIEsdf.lonestar.org> wrote:
> > > > "Michael Wignall" <wi...@evangelion.com> wrote:
> > > > There's only one Rei, just she has many different bodies e.g.
> > > > the three (or was it four?) she used and the load she had
> > > > spare in the tank before Ritsuko destroyed them all.
> > >
> > > There is only one "soul" and that soul is of Lilith, but there
> > > are multiple Reis. Rei-001, Rei-002, Rei-003, etc.
> > > We see all the of the "woken" Reis stand over Gendou
> > > in EoE. There are three Rei's there, three first Children.
> >
> > Bah, you are stretching the facts here to far! If the clones
> > do not have the soul then they are not the Rei that is
> > referred to when Rei is thought of.
>
> According to Ritsuko's controller they are. The clones are
> "called" Rei. The multiple Reis are numbered. There are many
> Reis. Plural. Children.
>
> http://homepage.powerup.com.au/~wignall/evaremote001.jpg
That's all very well but you know exactly what I mean. Those clones are
labeled Rei-## however when Ritsuko hears someone ask her about Rei she
doesn't give 14 different answers does she!
> > As The Rei in the mind of Shinji is the Rei in front of him
> > and not the ones in the tank, Rei is one, and not many. This
> > example holds true from everyone else in NGE as well, t
> > hose who know Rei anyhow.
>
> Everyone else in NGE don't have multiple clones of them sitting
> in a tank. Besides as I showed above the clones in the tank
> are referred to as "rei" as well. Multiple Reis are listed. Many
> First Children.
Yes Michael, and if we expanded Anno's universe I'm sure that we would find
many, many other children who aren't even clones, called Rei. Many boys too.
Should they be pilots too?
> Again the book "2015: The last year of Rouji Kaji" explicitly
> asks the reader to "ponder the meaning of the term "CHILDREN".
That does not qualify it in any way. It is merely a reference.
Disaster
> "Disaster" <disa...@disfanfic.net> wrote:
> > "Michael Wignall" <wi...@evangelion.com> wrote:
> > > "Disaster" <disa...@disfanfic.net> wrote:
> > > > "Michael Wignall" <wi...@evangelion.com> wrote:
> > > > But ADV did not change it by mistake, they were told to.
> > > > So you are saying that GAINAX originally screwed it up.
> > >
> > > I have seen nothing to suggest that Gainax told ADV to change it.
> > > Franking I find it very hard to believe that they did considering the
> > > term "Children" features in official publications and the like.
> >
> > I think it's obvious that they are merely trying to cover up their
> > mistake by blaming it all on ADV. They are simply calling their
> > use of "children" as a special circumstance. But you need cause
> > for that kind of usage and it's not there!
>
> You are avoiding the question. You stated that ADV were
> told to change it. Prove that please.
The only way you are going to believe me is if you get it from the source
itself. As this was purely a verbal conversation that I had then I must ask
you to inquire verbally for the evidence.
> Also once again it wasn't a mistake, so why would they
> want to change it.
Yes it was a mistake. It's wrong, therefore it's either a mistake, or
GAINAX/Anno are stupid!
> > > There are multiple Reis, this is a fact of the series, we see
> > > them all at one point. The are more than one Rei. There
> > > _are_ Reis, plural, this as a singular Rei is a child, many
> > > Reis are children.
> >
> > Tsk, they are not all soul bearing Rei's, thus they are not truly Rei.
> > Therefore, only the active Rei that has the soul of Lilith is truly Rei.
>
> They don't have to have souls to be called Reis. Ritsuko's controller
> lists them all calling them Rei-004, Rei-005, Rei-006 etc. There
> are multiple Reis.
>
> http://homepage.powerup.com.au/~wignall/evaremote001.jpg
>
> Plural - First Children.
Yes yes and in my last post I also asked if all the children in world called
Rei should be pilots to.
> > > Listen to the original, you can hear them say children. It is quite
> > > clear. If you don't want to believe it then that's your own problem.
> >
> > Well that's the problem isn't it? I can't, therefore it's up to you to
> > prove it to me. The cloestest to original that I have is a SUB of tape
2. Still
> > in Sydney.
>
> I don't have to prove anything. I really don't care if you don't
> believe it. Anyone who listens to the original will know the
> truth, if you can't get your hands on the original dialouge that's
> your own problem.
If you didn't care then you would not be pressing the issue so much.
> > > Becuase as I said, considering he was the one who made the
> > > mistake I wouldn't expect him to admit liability.
> >
> > Bah, you have not even given him a chance yet. Go ask him
> > and let him explain himself to you.
>
> Sure.
Finally.
> > > Gainax don't care about Eva anymore. They have moved on.
> >
> > So, that does not impact on my suggestion that you go ask them.
>
> No just on the fact that I won't get a response.
Was wondering when that particular subject was going to come up!
> > > They didn't want Eva done the way ADV did it, ADV just paided
> > > the most money for the rights to do it.
> >
> > It's part of the conditions Michael. ADV forked out the most
> > cash and they still had to take orders.
>
> Not as many as they should have though. They are flat out
> wrong in a number of cases. Obviously they just put what
> they "thought" was right (on video covers and such) but
> in the end was shown the be plainly wrong. They didn't do a
> good job Disaster. I don't understand why you are trying to
> argue that they did. They were plain lazy in some instances.
> Then of course there is the whole "KOA" thing in their Eva
> Encyclopaedia. I mean that's just plain poor quality checking.
> Even a small amount of checking would make them realise
> there is no such thing as a "KOA", that its the English word
> "CORE".
Well you know why I am arguing. It's the same reason you yourself have told
me you argue.
Bottom line, I don't care what really happened. This is just the other side
of the debate. Besides, I met Matt and Tiff is a friend, so there's a little
personal bias here.
> > > > ADV did not want to put in the corruptions that GAINAX insisted on.
> > >
> > > I fail to see how they are "corruptions" when Gainax produced the
> > > original. Anything ADV did to change the original is by definition
> > > a "corruption" not the other way around.
> >
> > Well as GAINAX was the one suggesting that ADV make the very
> > alterations that you are calling corruptions, one would conclude that
> > GAINAX is the one you are blaming for the corruptions.
>
> Once again, saying that Gainax suggested it doesn't make it so.
> Please provide some sort of evidence so support your wild
> allegations.
You have already been told to go talk to the stone wall! :P
Disaster
> "Disaster" <disa...@disfanfic.net> wrote:
> > "Michael Wignall" <wi...@evangelion.com> wrote:
> > > "Disaster" <disa...@disfanfic.net> wrote:
> > > > "Michael Wignall" <wi...@evangelion.com> wrote:
> > > > 1) It's in there best interested to get a better response
> > > > from their audience.
> > >
> > > It is their job to simply make the anime accessible to western
> > > audience. Not to change things as they see fit.
> >
> > No, it's their job to make that Anime understandable by the
> > Western Anime community/market so they will buy lots of it
> > so they can buy the next Anime series.
>
> And in the process they have changed the original story and
> made it something different. This something different isn't
> the "true" Eva, this something different isn't what I am a
> fan of, and to put it bluntly compared to the original
> this something different really is rather crap.
Don't exaggerate Michael. Of all the differences that I have heard whilst
being here, NGE has not been altered so much as to be that bad. At most a
few misunderstandings have occurred. Nothing serious.
> > > > 2) They have a much better idea then we do if only because
> > > > of their links to and work with the original creators.
> > >
> > > I thought that change was terrible. It makes you think of
> > > reference to "God" in Eva where there aren't any. It only
> > > adds more fuel to the fire that it is a "religious" anime, which
> > > it is not.
> >
> > That is the interpreters mistake, not NGE's problem. Or ADV
> > or even GAINAX.
>
> It's the translators mistake for blatantly changing lines in the show.
No it's not. Those are put in their deliberately to throw the viewer. It's
the Viewer's problem, they are the one that has to figure it out!
> > How often have we had to delve into NGE to find what we
> > are still not quite sure is the truth? Hell JAE spent a lot of time
> > investigating the religious references in NGE before it was
> > discovered that they misleading.
>
> Many times, which only goes to prove my point, no one knows
> Eva better than Gainax, thus any "interpretations" made by anyone
> else are going to be misinformed half-efforts.
Bah! That contradictions Anno's intentions.
> > > > 3) They corrected the line, not change it.
> > >
> > > The changed it completely. Like a lot of other times. There
> > > was no "correction" needed. They could have just done a direct
> > > translation.
> >
> > Which would not have made sense.
>
> "We'd better do something other than wait for that miracle."
>
> That makes perfect sense. There was no need to change it
> to: "Acts of men are better than acts of God!"
>
> They ignored the fact that they were supposed to do a simple
> translation and wholesale changed the line.
Either one makes sense. It's the same thing. The meaning has been translated
just fine!
> > Thus loosing the whole point of their job. Or even if it would
> > have made sense good chance that GAINAX told them to make
> > a change, correction or corruption whatever.
>
> You are terribly hypocritical. One moment you are saying that it
> is ADV's job to do the translations interpretations themselves and
> the next you are saying that Gainax made them do all the changes.
What I am saying is NOT hypocritical. The fact that GAINAX interfered with
ADV's job does mean that I have said one thing and then another.
> I guess Gainax told them to put completely wrong information on
> the video covers too?
I don't know anything at all about the video covers.
> > You should know that you can't make a direct translation and
> > keep the flow of the Anime or even maintain proper meaning.
>
> I think that above sentence is clear enough. It was _completely_
> changed.
Not what it meant.
> > > > Well, I'm happy with the explanation that ADV gave
> > > > me of NGE.
> > >
> > > You are welcome to be happy about that. Just don't expect
> > > anyone seriously discussing Eva to respect that. Eva was
> > > created by Gainax not ADV. I love Eva, thus I love the work
> > > Gaianx produced. Not the work of some middle man.
> >
> > GAINAX would also be a middleman then.
>
> How so? Gainax created the work.
As I understand it, Anno created the work. Unless GAINAX is also crazy I'd
say they are two distinct entities.
Celeborn
You seem to be hinging on this whole "Child" "Children" thing on Rei... what
about the others? And as for Rei, there is only one proper Rei who is alive
and living and has a soul. The other's are just bodies waiting to be used if
the need arises. Yes they are labelled as "Rei" with numbers as shown in
that picture.. but what else could they be called? "empty bodies"? Thats
hardly a meaningful label is it. "rei #1 #2 #3" etc. is meaningful and we as
the watchers and the ppl actually there immediately know whats being refered
to. "children" is a multiple for the word "child" .. a child is a human that
has a body and a soul and lives. Of that there is only one.. since theres
only one lileth soul. And as for the simple case of grammar, I dont know if
it was a change made because of Gainax or not, but it _feels_ more natural
reading and hearing it than children when referring to one person. "The
First Children" is not gramatically correct. 1st, 2nd, 3rd etc. can't be
used with just a plural or a word like that without another word suggesting
the plural. For example. "The first games for the playstation sucked." It's
alright, but correctly and for it to sound more natural "The first _batch_
of games for the playstation sucked" batch is a word for a plural. Or, it
could be "The first games for the playstation _were_ terrible" It's just
basic English grammar. Of course, people using a foreign language word in
their own language, like they did for the word "children" into japanese...
it might just be that it sounded better in the sentance structure (or just
indeed sounded better as a word) for japanese.
Changing the word Children to Child in teh translation to english is hardly
the biggest deal in the world and makes the translators terible people who
did a sloppy job... they merely made it sound more natural sounding for an
English audience. They havent changed the story with it, or changed the
meaning of anything.. they just made it grammatically correct for the
English language
Celeborn
Celeborn
> > are still not quite sure is the truth? Hell JAE spent a lot of time
> > investigating the religious references in NGE before it was
> > discovered that they misleading.
>
> Many times, which only goes to prove my point, no one knows
> Eva better than Gainax, thus any "interpretations" made by anyone
> else are going to be misinformed half-efforts.
>
> > > > 3) They corrected the line, not change it.
> > >
> > > The changed it completely. Like a lot of other times. There
> > > was no "correction" needed. They could have just done a direct
> > > translation.
> >
> > Which would not have made sense.
>
> "We'd better do something other than wait for that miracle."
>
> That makes perfect sense. There was no need to change it
> to: "Acts of men are better than acts of God!"
>
> They ignored the fact that they were supposed to do a simple
> translation and wholesale changed the line.
>
If your complaining that the line implies religious tones when there
arent... well the word "miracle" means (from dictionary.com) "An event that
appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to be supernatural
in origin or an act of God"
note "act of god"
now look at the meaning of the original sentence
"We'd better do something other than wait for that miracle."
ie. the PEOPLE have to act themselves and not wait for an ACT OF GOD. so the
translation of
"Acts of men are better than acts of God!"
is exactly the same meaning. No it isnt a literal translation, but the
sentence structure is better, and it conveys the same meaning.
So whats your problem here? That it isnt a literal translation? If we got a
literal translation of the whole script, we wudnt be able to make sense of
it a lot of the time. I'm sure they didnt always get things right 100%.. but
then who's perfect in this world? You are? Then you go through and translate
it all with it all being translated literally and nothing being changed to
suit to english language. No, nothing is as pure as the original in
japanese.. but learning japanese for years to become fluent just for an
anime isnt an option for most of us, and just because this brilliant anime
has been translated to english with a few tiny changes you dont like or
agree with... doesnt make that version the worst anime in the world and
totally crap.
Celeborn
Michael Wignall
> "Michael Wignall" <wi...@evangelion.com> wrote:
> > According to Ritsuko's controller they are. The clones are
> > "called" Rei. The multiple Reis are numbered. There are many
> > Reis. Plural. Children.
> >
> > http://homepage.powerup.com.au/~wignall/evaremote001.jpg
>
> That's all very well but you know exactly what I mean. Those
>someone ask her about Rei she doesn't give 14 different
> answers does she!
Because not everyone knows that there are multiple Reis.
The fact remains that there exists many first Children. To
call Rei "First Child" would be grammatically incorrect.
> > Everyone else in NGE don't have multiple clones of them sitting
> > in a tank. Besides as I showed above the clones in the tank
> > are referred to as "rei" as well. Multiple Reis are listed. Many
> > First Children.
>
> Yes Michael, and if we expanded Anno's universe I'm sure that
> we would find many, many other children who aren't even clones,
> called Rei. Many boys too. Should they be pilots too?
Its not just the name that is important, it is the name and the
fact that she is a clone of Yui and the fact that she is the pilot
of Eva-00. There are many pilots of Eva-00, all called Rei.
These multiple pilots together are the First Children.
> > Again the book "2015: The last year of Rouji Kaji" explicitly
> > asks the reader to "ponder the meaning of the term "CHILDREN".
>
> That does not qualify it in any way. It is merely a reference.
It points out directly that there is something to ponder. That
the term "Children" is significant. There was a reason behind it.
Michael Wignall
> "Michael Wignall" <wi...@evangelion.com> wrote:
> > "Disaster" <disa...@disfanfic.net> wrote:
> > And in the process they have changed the original story and
> > made it something different. This something different isn't
> > the "true" Eva, this something different isn't what I am a
> > fan of, and to put it bluntly compared to the original
> > this something different really is rather crap.
>
> Don't exaggerate Michael. Of all the differences that I
> have heard whilst being here, NGE has not been altered
> so much as to be that bad. At most a few misunderstandings
> have occurred. Nothing serious.
Please read what I have said closely next time. I am not saying
that it has been altered to be "bad" overall. Just compared to
the original. ADV were completely wrong in some cases,
provided information that directly contradicted things in the
series itself. The original obviously didn't have these problems,
thus again obviously the original is superior. I would go on to
say it was far superior to the ADV version.
> > > That is the interpreters mistake, not NGE's problem. Or ADV
> > > or even GAINAX.
> >
> > It's the translators mistake for blatantly changing lines in the show.
>
> No it's not. Those are put in their deliberately to throw the viewer.
It's
> the Viewer's problem, they are the one that has to figure it out!
"To throw the viewer"? Did you translate it did you? Do you know
the motivation behind why they changed it? The fact remains
that they changed the line completely. I am a fan of the, Gainax
series, of Anno's story, not some modified version by some
western distributor.
> > Many times, which only goes to prove my point, no one knows
> > Eva better than Gainax, thus any "interpretations" made by anyone
> > else are going to be misinformed half-efforts.
>
> Bah! That contradictions Anno's intentions.
Anno wanted us the fans to interpret his work. Not us the fans
to interpret the work of another interpreter.
> > > > The changed it completely. Like a lot of other times. There
> > > > was no "correction" needed. They could have just done a
> > > > direct translation.
> > >
> > > Which would not have made sense.
> >
> > "We'd better do something other than wait for that miracle."
> >
> > That makes perfect sense. There was no need to change it
> > to: "Acts of men are better than acts of God!"
> >
> > They ignored the fact that they were supposed to do a simple
> > translation and wholesale changed the line.
>
> Either one makes sense. It's the same thing. The meaning
> has been translated just fine!
It's not about whether it makes sense. It is about the integrity of
the original story, of the original script.
> > > Thus loosing the whole point of their job. Or even if it would
> > > have made sense good chance that GAINAX told them to make
> > > a change, correction or corruption whatever.
> >
> > You are terribly hypocritical. One moment you are saying that it
> > is ADV's job to do the translations interpretations themselves and
> > the next you are saying that Gainax made them do all the changes.
>
> What I am saying is NOT hypocritical. The fact that GAINAX
> interfered with ADV's job does mean that I have said one thing
> and then another.
Gainax were the creators, they have a right to make sure their
product wasn't corrupted. Obviously they didn't maintain that
much control because ADV did corrupt the original, in some
cases adding things that were totally wrong.
> > I guess Gainax told them to put completely wrong information on
> > the video covers too?
>
> I don't know anything at all about the video covers.
I am quite sure that they didn't tell ADV to put flat out incorrect
information on them. ADV were just sloppy.
> > > > You are welcome to be happy about that. Just don't expect
> > > > anyone seriously discussing Eva to respect that. Eva was
> > > > created by Gainax not ADV. I love Eva, thus I love the work
> > > > Gaianx produced. Not the work of some middle man.
> > >
> > > GAINAX would also be a middleman then.
> >
> > How so? Gainax created the work.
>
> As I understand it, Anno created the work. Unless GAINAX is
> also crazy I'd say they are two distinct entities.
Anno is part of Gainax. Anno didn't do _everything_, other
people worked on the story, other people directed stuff,
other people did the animation, other people did the music.
It was a group effort. Anno was just responsible for the
main story, and the majority of the emotion that was
contained within. Anno was the main driving power, but to
discount the other Gainax staff as "middle men" is a bit much.
--
Michael Wignall
"Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's
game because they almost always turn out to be - or to be
indistinguishable from - self-righteous sixteen- year olds possessing
infinite amounts of free time." --Neal Stephenson, Cryptonomicon
Michael Wignall
> "Michael Wignall" <wi...@evangelion.com> wrote:
> > "Disaster" <disa...@disfanfic.net> wrote:
> > > I think it's obvious that they are merely trying to cover up their
> > > mistake by blaming it all on ADV. They are simply calling their
> > > use of "children" as a special circumstance. But you need cause
> > > for that kind of usage and it's not there!
> >
> > You are avoiding the question. You stated that ADV were
> > told to change it. Prove that please.
>
> The only way you are going to believe me is if you get it from
> the source itself. As this was purely a verbal conversation that
> I had then I must ask you to inquire verbally for the evidence.
Considering I have never met, and probably never will meet
anyone how did the translations I think that will be a little difficult.
If you want me to believe that ADV were told to change it then
you will have to prove it to me. This isn't like "proving" that
they actually say Children in the original, anyone who has
a copy of the original can listen to it and see that it is true.
You are purporting to have extra information about what
when on, you are making these sweeping statements but
have never provided any evidence to support them. What I
would most like, if what you say is true, is a statement from
Gainax saying that they told ADV to change it. However
as far as I am aware no such statement exists (my thoughts
are they such a statement doesn't exist becuase they
_didn't_ tell ADV to change it).
> > Also once again it wasn't a mistake, so why would they
> > want to change it.
>
> Yes it was a mistake. It's wrong, therefore it's either a mistake, or
> GAINAX/Anno are stupid!
It's not wrong. It was intentional. Therefore it isn't a mistake.
I suggest you look up the defintions of "intentional" and
"mistake".
> > They don't have to have souls to be called Reis. Ritsuko's controller
> > lists them all calling them Rei-004, Rei-005, Rei-006 etc. There
> > are multiple Reis.
> >
> > http://homepage.powerup.com.au/~wignall/evaremote001.jpg
> >
> > Plural - First Children.
>
> Yes yes and in my last post I also asked if all the children in
> world called Rei should be pilots to.
Not all the children in the world called Rei also pilot an Eva.
There are multiply Reis who pilot Eva-00, there multiple Reis
who are given the title the "First", thus there are many "First
Children".
> > I don't have to prove anything. I really don't care if you don't
> > believe it. Anyone who listens to the original will know the
> > truth, if you can't get your hands on the original dialouge that's
> > your own problem.
>
> If you didn't care then you would not be pressing the issue so much.
I don't care if you don't believe. I just care about you putting
forward incorrect infromation. I am just trying to correct your
blunders so that people who read this wont be misinformed.
Again anyone who listens to the original will hear "Children".
> > > > Gainax don't care about Eva anymore. They have moved on.
> > >
> > > So, that does not impact on my suggestion that you go ask them.
> >
> > No just on the fact that I won't get a response.
>
> Was wondering when that particular subject was going to come up!
It did come up. Hence my comment "Gainax don't care about Eva
anymore. They have moved on.". They don't care, they won't answer,
Eva is over for them.
> > Not as many as they should have though. They are flat out
> > wrong in a number of cases. Obviously they just put what
> > they "thought" was right (on video covers and such) but
> > in the end was shown the be plainly wrong. They didn't do a
> > good job Disaster. I don't understand why you are trying to
> > argue that they did. They were plain lazy in some instances.
> > Then of course there is the whole "KOA" thing in their Eva
> > Encyclopaedia. I mean that's just plain poor quality checking.
> > Even a small amount of checking would make them realise
> > there is no such thing as a "KOA", that its the English word
> > "CORE".
>
> Well you know why I am arguing. It's the same reason
> you yourself have told me you argue.
>
> Bottom line, I don't care what really happened. This is just the
> other side of the debate. Besides, I met Matt and Tiff is a friend,
> so there's a little personal bias here.
Just because you have met them, doesn't mean they can't do crap
work. You are excluding the possibility that they could be wrong,
simply because you talked to them. I say they are directly wrong
in a number of places, they have been proven to be wrong in a
number of cases, and the "bottom line" is that they are not Gainax,
they are not the original creators, they only serve to dilute the
original story.
> > > Well as GAINAX was the one suggesting that ADV make the very
> > > alterations that you are calling corruptions, one would conclude that
> > > GAINAX is the one you are blaming for the corruptions.
> >
> > Once again, saying that Gainax suggested it doesn't make it so.
> > Please provide some sort of evidence so support your wild
> > allegations.
>
> You have already been told to go talk to the stone wall! :P
So you can't provide any evidence, and thus everything that you
are saying is unsupported. I however have provided evidence that
the use of Children for instance was intentional...
David Scarlett
news:ue8cr55...@corp.supernews.com:
> Changing the word Children to Child in teh translation to english
> is hardly the biggest deal in the world and makes the translators
> terible people who did a sloppy job...
It wasn't a translation. The word "children" was used in the Japanese
dub. Yes, it was used _in English_.
--
David Scarlett
dscarlett [AT] optushome [DOT] com [DOT] au
Celeborn
"David Scarlett" <lo...@my.signature> wrote in message
news:Xns92116DEBF713...@210.49.20.254...
> "Celeborn" <ccelebor...@HERE-PLEASEhotmail.com> wrote in
> news:ue8cr55...@corp.supernews.com:
>
> > Changing the word Children to Child in teh translation to english
> > is hardly the biggest deal in the world and makes the translators
> > terible people who did a sloppy job...
>
> It wasn't a translation. The word "children" was used in the Japanese
> dub. Yes, it was used _in English_.
>
>
I know, in what i wrote
"Of course, people using a foreign language word in
their own language, like they did for the word "children" in japanese...
it might just be that it sounded better in the sentance structure (or just
indeed sounded better as a word) for japanese"
:P
Celeborn
Michael Wignall
news:ue8cr55...@corp.supernews.com...<Snip>
>
> You seem to be hinging on this whole "Child" "Children"
> thing on Rei... what about the others?
No I'm hinging it on the fact that they actually say the English
word "Children" in the original Japanese. The VA's were told
to say the English word.
> And as for Rei, there is only one proper Rei who is alive
> and living and has a soul. The other's are just bodies waiting
> to be used if the need arises.
That doesn't change the fact that there are multiple "First Children".
More than one Rei exists, more than one Rei pilots Eva-00, Rei is
not a singular entity, there are many Reis.
Also in the end it doesn't change the fact that she was explicitly
called 'First Children" in the original.
> Yes they are labelled as "Rei" with numbers as shown in that
> picture.. but what else could they be called? "empty bodies"?
> Thats hardly a meaningful label is it. "rei #1 #2 #3" etc. is meaningful
> and we as the watchers and the ppl actually there immediately know
> whats being refered to.
Yes we are, multiple Reis, multiple First Children. Not multiple
First Child.
> "children" is a multiple for the word "child" .. a child is a human
> that has a body and a soul and lives.
A real world definition perhaps. Obviously not one that holds within
the Eva Universe.
> Of that there is only one.. since theres only one lileth soul.
Again the fact that there is only one soul doesn't matter. To quote
the EoE theatrical program, under Rei Ayanami:
"Her body was created from the salvaged remains of Yui Ikari
after Yui was taken into the Eva, and numerous Rei clones were
then prepared in Terminal Dogma so that when one Rei dies she
can be replaced by another. "
The clones are referred to as Rei clones. "when one Rei dies
she can be replaced by another [Rei]". There are many Reis.
Many Children.
> And as for the simple case of grammar, I dont know if it
> was a change made because of Gainax or not, but it _feels_
> more natural reading and hearing it than children when
> referring to one person.
Of course it does. That's the point. You are supposed to
think it is strange. You are supposed to wonder about why
they called them "Children" and not "Child".
>"The First Children" is not gramatically correct. 1st, 2nd,
> 3rd etc. can't be used with just a plural or a word like
> that without another word suggesting the plural. For
> example. "The first games for the playstation sucked."
> It's alright, but correctly and for it to sound more natural
> "The first _batch_ of games for the playstation sucked"
> batch is a word for a plural. Or, it could be "The first
> games for the playstation _were_ terrible" It's just basic
> English grammar. Of course, people using a foreign language
> word in their own language, like they did for the word
> "children" into japanese... it might just be that it sounded
> better in the sentance structure (or just indeed sounded
> better as a word) for japanese.
They were "The First Children" to pilot an Eva.
It wasn't used because it "sounds" better, they used it because
it stands out. "Children" doesn't make sense for Shinji and Asuka
and Touji.
Shinji was "The Third Children" to pilot an Eva doesn't make
sense, and it shouldn't make sense. They make a special point
in one of the Eva books, of telling us to ponder the significance of
the term "Children". The whole point of it is that for everyone
but Rei, the term "Children" _is_ grammatically incorrect. Changing it
to "Child" destroys that point. They went out of they to specifically
get the Japanese VA's to say "Children", they make specific
mention of the fact that it is a different term and we need to ponder
its meanings. This is a Gainax anime, they are otaku, the whole
thing is filled with symbolism, references and in-jokes. I really can't
understand why people keep insisting that they "didn't know what
they were doing" and used the word incorrectly.
> Changing the word Children to Child in teh translation to
> english is hardly the biggest deal in the world and makes the
> translators terible people who did a sloppy job...
That alone doesn't make them sloppy. That coupled with
all the other flaws make them sloppy. If they had only bothered
to check then Gaianx would have said "no Children is intentional,
leave it in", instead they took it upon themselves to change it.
> they merely made it sound more natural sounding for an
> English audience.
Completely ruining the point, which is that it wasn't supposed to
sound natural. It didn't sound natural for a Japanese audience,
it shouldn't for us either.
> They havent changed the story with it, or changed the meaning
> of anything.. they just made it grammatically correct for the
> English language
They took it upon themselves to change the original, when they
didn't even know why it was done that way in the first place in
the original. Just like a lot of other things they did (saying the
First Impact killed off the dinosaurs for instance), they took it
upon themselves to say these things, when they weren't mentioned
at all (and in some cases were flatly contradicted) within the original.
Watchman
Disaster wrote:
>
> > > > Anyone who hadn't read it though, and was looking to see where
> > > > Anno got that title from, would have a hard time discovering it.
> >
> > Fair enough... but how many people would?
>
> I'm one!
> --
But how many sane people would? ;p
Vaughn L.Porter
> It points out directly that there is something to ponder. That
> the term "Children" is significant. There was a reason behind it.
>
> --
> Michael Wignall
> "Tomorrow's just an excuse away..."
>
>
What, it's saying that NERV has clones of Shinji and Asuka stowed away
somewhere? Just in case something happened to them? How would their souls be
transferred to the clone bodies, since they never are seen @ Terminal Dogma,
only Rei? I think that's some of what Disaster is trying to point out;
Shinji, Asuka, and Rei are the Children when together, and Child
individualy! And where did the clones come from, anyway? Kamino?
Vaughn L.Porter
Someone has to ask the stupid questions.
Michael Wignall
news:ue8u32i...@corp.supernews.com...
> <SNIP>
>
> > It points out directly that there is something to ponder. That
> > the term "Children" is significant. There was a reason behind it.
> >
> stowed away somewhere?
Of course not. It is significant with respect to Rei.
> Just in case something happened to them? How would their
> souls be transferred to the clone bodies, since they never are
> seen @ Terminal Dogma, only Rei? I think that's some of
> what Disaster is trying to point out; Shinji, Asuka, and Rei
> are the Children when together, and Child individualy! And
> where did the clones come from, anyway? Kamino?
The point is that it is a matter of convention. Rei is the
"First Children", it is a correct term for her. Everyone
who comes after (who aren't clones) _should_ be
called "Child" for that term to correctly apply to them.
The point is that they don't change it. They call then
_all_ children. It's a naming convention. As I have pointed
out it is actually written "tekikakusha" which means
qualified or adequate person. "Children" is a title.
It fits Rei, the first, the original. It doesn't fit the others
but their continue to use it because its the title of these
"qualified persons".
Michael Wignall
<Snip>
> > They ignored the fact that they were supposed to do a simple
> > translation and wholesale changed the line.
> >
>
> If your complaining that the line implies religious tones when
> there arent... well the word "miracle" means (from dictionary.com)
> "An event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is
> held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God"
>
> note "act of god"
I think you are totally missing the point. An English, western, definition
of "miracle" might ascribe it to "God", but in Japan it doesn't have to
especially considering none of the members of Gaianx are Christian
and don't believe in a "God" like that as such. I
> now look at the meaning of the original sentence "We'd better
> do something other than wait for that miracle." ie. the PEOPLE have
> to act themselves and not wait for an ACT OF GOD. so the translation
> of "Acts of men are better than acts of God!" is exactly the same
meaning.
> No it isnt a literal translation, but the sentence structure is better,
and it
> conveys the same meaning.
It doesn't convey the same meaning at all. If they wanted to rely on
an "Act of God" they would have mentioned it. They didn't though,
in fact they don't mention a global "God" at all. Humans weren't
"created by God in his own image", they were born from Lilith.
A western, christain person might attribute a "miricale" to "God".
However some western people might attribute it to something
else, something "supernatural in origin". In Japan I would suggest
they definately wouldn't attribute it to "God" and within Eva I
would suggest that is ever more true.
There are religious references in Eva, but there is no "God"
as such ever mentioned. Kazuya Tsurumaki even stated in
reference to the Christian symbolism that "If we had known
the show would get distributed in the US and Europe we might
have rethought that choice.".
ADV don't care about this though, they just go and throw _even_
more references in there where they weren't originally.
> and just because this brilliant anime has been translated to english
> with a few tiny changes you dont like or agree with... doesnt make
> that version the worst anime in the world and totally crap.
It's not that I just "don't like" the changes. Many of the changes are
flat out incorrect. They are wrong. Also please don't put words into
my mouth I never said it was the "worst anime" or "totally crap". I said
that it is far inferior to the original. It is even inferior to most
fansubs of
it out there (if you can still get them). It's not "bad" compared to a
lot of other anime out there, its just a very sloppy job. Because this
is ever, despite that sloppy job it still is fantastic, but overall it is
woeful when you consider all the totally incorrect things that were
done.
I only just remembered the "KOA" one. That really is ridiculous.
Rudolf Polzer
> "Celeborn" <ccelebor...@HERE-PLEASEhotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ue8e1h7...@corp.supernews.com...
> <Snip>
> > > They ignored the fact that they were supposed to do a simple
> > > translation and wholesale changed the line.
> > >
> >
> > If your complaining that the line implies religious tones when
> > there arent... well the word "miracle" means (from dictionary.com)
> > "An event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is
> > held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God"
> >
> > note "act of god"
>
> I think you are totally missing the point. An English, western, definition
> of "miracle" might ascribe it to "God", but in Japan it doesn't have to
> especially considering none of the members of Gaianx are Christian
> and don't believe in a "God" like that as such. I
That's true - but it's irrelevant in judging the translation. Fact is:
this part of the translation _is_ free, but it's up to anyone on his own
whether such things are good or not.
Michael Wignall
news:slrnae9ej3.1cd.Ant...@www42.durchnull.de...
definition
> > of "miracle" might ascribe it to "God", but in Japan it doesn't have to
> > especially considering none of the members of Gaianx are Christian
> > and don't believe in a "God" like that as such. I
>
> That's true - but it's irrelevant in judging the translation. Fact is:
> this part of the translation _is_ free, but it's up to anyone on his own
> whether such things are good or not.
Literal Translation:
"We'd better do something other than wait for that miracle."
ADV translation:
"Acts of men are better than acts of God!"
Lets put it in context here as well:
----------
Misato: How likely is a self-halt?
Staff: 0.00002%. It would be a miracle!
Misato: We'd better do something other than wait for that miracle.
Tell me how to stop it.
Chair: We've tried all possible ways to halt it.
---------
Then later on:
----------
Misato: Well, yes, though somewhat worse for wear.
Shinji: I'm glad! You are alive! I'm glad to hear that!
You're great! You're so wonderful! A miracle happened!
Misato: Yes... The miracle was granted... by somebody...
---------
And we know who that "somebody" is. Not "God", but
Gendou and Ritsuko.
Changing it to "acts of God", completely changes the meaning
of that whole passage.
So when it comes to judging the translation you not only have
to look at how literal it is with respect to the original Japanese,
but also how it affects on the overall translation. Its about
continuity, it's about Gaianx's with not to keep "God" out
of it, its about the fact that ADV changed the sentence to
make it sound "cooler" when its not their job to do that.
If you want to analyse another passage then how about
this one from episode 8, when Gendou is talking to Kaji
about escaping.
A literal translation of what Kaji says is: "I understand/know"
The ADV dub has him saying: "Heh, of course I can!"
Rudolf Polzer
> "Rudolf Polzer" <AntiATFiel...@durchnull.de> wrote in message
> news:slrnae9ej3.1cd.Ant...@www42.durchnull.de...
> > Scripsit illa aut ille Michael Wignall <wi...@evangelion.com>:
> > > I think you are totally missing the point. An English, western,
> definition
> > > of "miracle" might ascribe it to "God", but in Japan it doesn't have to
> > > especially considering none of the members of Gaianx are Christian
> > > and don't believe in a "God" like that as such. I
> >
> > That's true - but it's irrelevant in judging the translation. Fact is:
> > this part of the translation _is_ free, but it's up to anyone on his own
> > whether such things are good or not.
>
> Literal Translation:
> "We'd better do something other than wait for that miracle."
>
> ADV translation:
> "Acts of men are better than acts of God!"
I just see another point about this: literally they wait for _that_
miracle, not for _a_ miracle.
> Lets put it in context here as well:
>
> ----------
> Misato: How likely is a self-halt?
>
> Staff: 0.00002%. It would be a miracle!
>
> Misato: We'd better do something other than wait for that miracle.
> Tell me how to stop it.
>
> Chair: We've tried all possible ways to halt it.
> ---------
>
> Then later on:
>
> ----------
> Misato: Well, yes, though somewhat worse for wear.
>
> Shinji: I'm glad! You are alive! I'm glad to hear that!
> You're great! You're so wonderful! A miracle happened!
>
> Misato: Yes... The miracle was granted... by somebody...
> ---------
Is it really the same miracle? OK, they are connected - but it would now
be important what they did to this passage.
I am currently done with ep 6 in the German translation, noticed several
references to the AT field that did not occur in the subs
([ei ti fi:ldo] cannot be overheared). I'm just staring with 7-DE (7,
German subs) and will post what they subbed.
> If you want to analyse another passage then how about
> this one from episode 8, when Gendou is talking to Kaji
> about escaping.
>
> A literal translation of what Kaji says is: "I understand/know"
>
> The ADV dub has him saying: "Heh, of course I can!"
And the context is the same?
Rudolf Polzer
> > Misato: How likely is a self-halt?
> >
> > Staff: 0.00002%. It would be a miracle!
> >
> > Misato: We'd better do something other than wait for that miracle.
> > Tell me how to stop it.
> >
> > Chair: We've tried all possible ways to halt it.
> > ---------
> >
> > Then later on:
> >
> > ----------
> > Misato: Well, yes, though somewhat worse for wear.
> >
> > Shinji: I'm glad! You are alive! I'm glad to hear that!
> > You're great! You're so wonderful! A miracle happened!
> >
> > Misato: Yes... The miracle was granted... by somebody...
> > ---------
>
> Is it really the same miracle? OK, they are connected - but it would now
> be important what they did to this passage.
>
> I am currently done with ep 6 in the German translation, noticed several
> references to the AT field that did not occur in the subs
> ([ei ti fi:ldo] cannot be overheared). I'm just staring with 7-DE (7,
> German subs) and will post what they subbed.
Staff: ,,Wir können nur darauf warten, dass er von selbst anhält.''
Misato: ,,Die Wahrscheinlichkeit der Selbstabschaltung?''
Staff: ,,0,00002%.'' <says something that is not subbed>
Misato: ,,Besser wir tun etwas, als auf ein Wunder zu warten.
Sagen Sie mir, wie?!''
---
Shinji: ,,Toll, ich bin beeindruckt. Ein Wunder ist geschehen.''
Misato: ,,Ja, das Wunder wurde von irgendjemandem vorbereitet.''
It seems like the German translation is closer, but many things are left
out.
BTW: ,,Die Zulassung von Herrn Witz habe ich schon'' (I already noticed
this in the English sub, and it can be heared) - in German ,,Witz''
means "joke".
Rudolf Polzer
> Scripsit illa aut ille Rudolf Polzer <AntiATFiel...@durchnull.de>:
> > Scripsit illa aut ille Michael Wignall <wi...@evangelion.com>:
> > > ----------
> > > Misato: How likely is a self-halt?
> > >
> > > Staff: 0.00002%. It would be a miracle!
> > >
> > > Misato: We'd better do something other than wait for that miracle.
> > > Tell me how to stop it.
> > >
> > > Chair: We've tried all possible ways to halt it.
> > > ---------
> > >
> > > Then later on:
> > >
> > > ----------
> > > Misato: Well, yes, though somewhat worse for wear.
> > >
> > > Shinji: I'm glad! You are alive! I'm glad to hear that!
> > > You're great! You're so wonderful! A miracle happened!
> > >
> > > Misato: Yes... The miracle was granted... by somebody...
> > > ---------
> Staff: ,,Wir können nur darauf warten, dass er von selbst anhält.''
> Misato: ,,Die Wahrscheinlichkeit der Selbstabschaltung?''
> Staff: ,,0,00002%.'' <says something that is not subbed>
> Misato: ,,Besser wir tun etwas, als auf ein Wunder zu warten.
> Sagen Sie mir, wie?!''
Would you tell me how to?!"
> ---
> Shinji: ,,Toll, ich bin beeindruckt. Ein Wunder ist geschehen.''
> Misato: ,,Ja, das Wunder wurde von irgendjemandem vorbereitet.''
>
> It seems like the German translation is closer, but many things are left
> out.
And I forgot to translate it literally to English.
Michael Wignall
> Scripsit illa aut ille Michael Wignall <wi...@evangelion.com>:
> > "Rudolf Polzer" <AntiATFiel...@durchnull.de> wrote in message
> > news:slrnae9ej3.1cd.Ant...@www42.durchnull.de...
is:
> > > this part of the translation _is_ free, but it's up to anyone on his
own
> > > whether such things are good or not.
> >
> > Literal Translation:
> > "We'd better do something other than wait for that miracle."
> >
> > ADV translation:
> > "Acts of men are better than acts of God!"
>
> I just see another point about this: literally they wait for _that_
> miracle, not for _a_ miracle.
Yes, "that" miracle referring to the "self-halt". Not some
random "act of god" to stop it.
> > ----------
> > Misato: Well, yes, though somewhat worse for wear.
> >
> > Shinji: I'm glad! You are alive! I'm glad to hear that!
> > You're great! You're so wonderful! A miracle happened!
> >
> > Misato: Yes... The miracle was granted... by somebody...
> > ---------
>
> Is it really the same miracle? OK, they are connected - but
> it would now be important what they did to this passage.
Ritsuko triggered the "self half". The "miracle" was granted
because of Gendou's plans.
> > A literal translation of what Kaji says is: "I understand/know"
> >
> > The ADV dub has him saying: "Heh, of course I can!"
>
> And the context is the same?
I don't think so.
"I understand" I just basic Kaji acknowledging what Gendou said.
"Heh, of course I can", is a cocky, arrogant baddass Kaji.
Kaji doesn't need to make such statements "of course I can".
It completely changes the feel of that scene, its not longer about
Kaji doing a mission and being able to escape if problems occur,
its about Kaji being a baddass. It's not serious Kaji, its Kaji
boasting that "of course he can".
Michael Wignall
> Scripsit illa aut ille Rudolf Polzer
<AntiATFiel...@durchnull.de>:
> > Scripsit illa aut ille Rudolf Polzer
<AntiATFiel...@durchnull.de>:
<Snip Translation>
> > It seems like the German translation is closer, but many
> > things are left out.
At least they kept it at miracle and didn't turn it into "acts of God".
In general I don't trust _any_ translation fully until I see numerous
different sources all saying the same thing. There are about 4 or 5
different translations of EoE floating around and it is really quite
interesting to compare those to each other. What I think will be
more interested is to compare them to what is actually used in
the Manga release.
Vaughn L.Porter
And, you have a problem with that, because....?
Vaughn L.Porter
Kaji IS a badass,
Why do you think Asuka's so hot for him?
Michael Wignall
> Michael Wignall <wi...@evangelion.com> wrote in message
> news:sX9F8.1731$C4.1...@ozemail.com.au...
> >
> > "Heh, of course I can", is a cocky, arrogant baddass Kaji.
> >
> > Kaji doesn't need to make such statements "of course I can".
> >
> > It completely changes the feel of that scene, its not longer about
> > Kaji doing a mission and being able to escape if problems occur,
> > its about Kaji being a baddass. It's not serious Kaji, its Kaji
> > boasting that "of course he can".
> >
>
Because even though Kaji is a baddass he doesn't need to make
stupid cocky statements like that to prove it. Once again its a
case of ADV changing a line because they think it sounds better.
I am not interested in what ADV think, but what Gainax did.
Disaster
> > > According to Ritsuko's controller they are. The clones are
> > > "called" Rei. The multiple Reis are numbered. There are many
> > > Reis. Plural. Children.
> > >
> > > http://homepage.powerup.com.au/~wignall/evaremote001.jpg
> >
> > That's all very well but you know exactly what I mean. Those
> > ones are labeled Rei-## however when Ritsuko hears
> >someone ask her about Rei she doesn't give 14 different
> > answers does she!
>
> Because not everyone knows that there are multiple Reis.
> The fact remains that there exists many first Children. To
> call Rei "First Child" would be grammatically incorrect.
To have a child you must have a soul. Thus "anyone" without a soul can not
be referred to as a child.
> > > Everyone else in NGE don't have multiple clones of them sitting
> > > in a tank. Besides as I showed above the clones in the tank
> > > are referred to as "rei" as well. Multiple Reis are listed. Many
> > > First Children.
> >
> > Yes Michael, and if we expanded Anno's universe I'm sure that
> > we would find many, many other children who aren't even clones,
> > called Rei. Many boys too. Should they be pilots too?
>
> Its not just the name that is important, it is the name and the
> fact that she is a clone of Yui and the fact that she is the pilot
> of Eva-00. There are many pilots of Eva-00, all called Rei.
> These multiple pilots together are the First Children.
As you are required to have a soul to pilot an Eva, any clone without the
soul of Lilith is not qualified to pilot Unit 00. As Rei is the pilot of
Unit 00, the clones fail to meet this requirement and can not therefore be
classified as Rei.
> > > Again the book "2015: The last year of Rouji Kaji" explicitly
> > > asks the reader to "ponder the meaning of the term "CHILDREN".
> >
> > That does not qualify it in any way. It is merely a reference.
>
> It points out directly that there is something to ponder. That
> the term "Children" is significant. There was a reason behind it.
True, there IS something to ponder, it is the advantageous use of a mistake
to the benefit of the viewer.
Disaster
> <SNIP>
>
> > It points out directly that there is something to ponder. That
> > the term "Children" is significant. There was a reason behind it.
>
> somewhere? Just in case something happened to them? How would their souls
be
> transferred to the clone bodies, since they never are seen @ Terminal
Dogma,
> only Rei? I think that's some of what Disaster is trying to point out;
> Shinji, Asuka, and Rei are the Children when together, and Child
> individualy! And where did the clones come from, anyway? Kamino?
The Rei clones came from Lilith, actually Michael proved this to me. I'm
happy with it for now. but yer right on the rest of it! :)
Disaster
> "Vaughn L.Porter" <vau...@pcez.com> wrote:
> The point is that it is a matter of convention. Rei is the
> "First Children", it is a correct term for her. Everyone
> who comes after (who aren't clones) _should_ be
> called "Child" for that term to correctly apply to them.
> The point is that they don't change it. They call then
> _all_ children. It's a naming convention. As I have pointed
> out it is actually written "tekikakusha" which means
> qualified or adequate person. "Children" is a title.
> It fits Rei, the first, the original. It doesn't fit the others
> but their continue to use it because its the title of these
> "qualified persons".
Perhaps, this does not make it correct however!
David Scarlett
news:ueb90i1...@corp.supernews.com:
> To have a child you must have a soul. Thus "anyone" without a soul
> can not be referred to as a child.
Riiiiiiiiiiight.........
Rudolf Polzer
> "Michael Wignall" <wi...@evangelion.com> wrote:
> > "Disaster" <disa...@disfanfic.net> wrote:
> > > "Michael Wignall" <wi...@evangelion.com> wrote:
> > > > According to Ritsuko's controller they are. The clones are
> > > > "called" Rei. The multiple Reis are numbered. There are many
> > > > Reis. Plural. Children.
> > > >
> > > > http://homepage.powerup.com.au/~wignall/evaremote001.jpg
> > >
> > > That's all very well but you know exactly what I mean. Those
> > > ones are labeled Rei-## however when Ritsuko hears
> > >someone ask her about Rei she doesn't give 14 different
> > > answers does she!
> >
> > Because not everyone knows that there are multiple Reis.
> > The fact remains that there exists many first Children. To
> > call Rei "First Child" would be grammatically incorrect.
>
> To have a child you must have a soul. Thus "anyone" without a soul can not
> be referred to as a child.
<smartass>"Anyone" refers to persons. Persons have souls. So "anyone
without a soul" means all elements of the empty set. Every statement
about all elements in the empty set is true [*]. So anyone without a
soul _can_ be referred to as a child.</smartass>
[*]: every number greater than 4 but lower than 3 is the square root of pi.
Disaster
As we are not talking about pi or even math, you are contraditing yourself.
The statement above "anyone without a soul" according to the definitions
impied and/or described means that the phrase can not use the term "anyone."
As "anyone" implies, with soul.
Disaster
> "Disaster" <disa...@disfanfic.net> wrote:
> > "Michael Wignall" <wi...@evangelion.com> wrote:
> > > "Disaster" <disa...@disfanfic.net> wrote:
> > > > I think it's obvious that they are merely trying to cover up their
> > > > mistake by blaming it all on ADV. They are simply calling their
> > > > use of "children" as a special circumstance. But you need cause
> > > > for that kind of usage and it's not there!
> > >
> > > You are avoiding the question. You stated that ADV were
> > > told to change it. Prove that please.
> >
> > The only way you are going to believe me is if you get it from
> > the source itself. As this was purely a verbal conversation that
> > I had then I must ask you to inquire verbally for the evidence.
>
> Considering I have never met, and probably never will meet
> anyone how did the translations I think that will be a little difficult.
Hey, life wasn't meant to be easy.
> If you want me to believe that ADV were told to change it then
> you will have to prove it to me. This isn't like "proving" that
> they actually say Children in the original, anyone who has
> a copy of the original can listen to it and see that it is true.
> You are purporting to have extra information about what
> when on, you are making these sweeping statements but
> have never provided any evidence to support them. What I
> would most like, if what you say is true, is a statement from
> Gainax saying that they told ADV to change it. However
> as far as I am aware no such statement exists (my thoughts
> are they such a statement doesn't exist becuase they
> _didn't_ tell ADV to change it).
It's the same, I don't have the original and you don't have a statement, yet
you still want me to believe you.
> > > Also once again it wasn't a mistake, so why would they
> > > want to change it.
> >
> > Yes it was a mistake. It's wrong, therefore it's either a mistake, or
> > GAINAX/Anno are stupid!
>
> It's not wrong. It was intentional. Therefore it isn't a mistake.
> I suggest you look up the defintions of "intentional" and
> "mistake".
Hmm, indeed, two words, two different meanings. Very different. In fact they
actually have very little to do with each other. Just because something is
intentional does not mean it is not a mistake. If I take a gun and shoot you
in the head quite deliberately does not mean it was not a mistake. It's not
right just because I meant to.
> > > They don't have to have souls to be called Reis. Ritsuko's controller
> > > lists them all calling them Rei-004, Rei-005, Rei-006 etc. There
> > > are multiple Reis.
> > >
> > > http://homepage.powerup.com.au/~wignall/evaremote001.jpg
> > >
> > > Plural - First Children.
> >
> > Yes yes and in my last post I also asked if all the children in
> > world called Rei should be pilots to.
>
> Not all the children in the world called Rei also pilot an Eva.
> There are multiply Reis who pilot Eva-00, there multiple Reis
> who are given the title the "First", thus there are many "First
> Children".
Hmmm, not all the Rei's in the world Pilot Unit 00, just like none of the
clones in the tank pilot Unit 00. They Float.
> > > I don't have to prove anything. I really don't care if you don't
> > > believe it. Anyone who listens to the original will know the
> > > truth, if you can't get your hands on the original dialouge that's
> > > your own problem.
> >
> > If you didn't care then you would not be pressing the issue so much.
>
> I don't care if you don't believe. I just care about you putting
> forward incorrect infromation. I am just trying to correct your
> blunders so that people who read this wont be misinformed.
I put forward information that either I know is true or has been discussed
in hear before. Just because you are missing facts does not mean that I am.
> Again anyone who listens to the original will hear "Children".
>
> > > > > Gainax don't care about Eva anymore. They have moved on.
> > > >
> > > > So, that does not impact on my suggestion that you go ask them.
> > >
> > > No just on the fact that I won't get a response.
> >
> > Was wondering when that particular subject was going to come up!
>
> It did come up. Hence my comment "Gainax don't care about Eva
> anymore. They have moved on.". They don't care, they won't answer,
> Eva is over for them.
That's not exactly the same thing. It was near impossible to get anything
out of them on NGE whilst it was a big deal for them.
> > > Not as many as they should have though. They are flat out
> > > wrong in a number of cases. Obviously they just put what
> > > they "thought" was right (on video covers and such) but
> > > in the end was shown the be plainly wrong. They didn't do a
> > > good job Disaster. I don't understand why you are trying to
> > > argue that they did. They were plain lazy in some instances.
> > > Then of course there is the whole "KOA" thing in their Eva
> > > Encyclopaedia. I mean that's just plain poor quality checking.
> > > Even a small amount of checking would make them realise
> > > there is no such thing as a "KOA", that its the English word
> > > "CORE".
> >
> > Well you know why I am arguing. It's the same reason
> > you yourself have told me you argue.
> >
> > Bottom line, I don't care what really happened. This is just the
> > other side of the debate. Besides, I met Matt and Tiff is a friend,
> > so there's a little personal bias here.
>
> Just because you have met them, doesn't mean they can't do crap
> work. You are excluding the possibility that they could be wrong,
> simply because you talked to them. I say they are directly wrong
> in a number of places, they have been proven to be wrong in a
> number of cases, and the "bottom line" is that they are not Gainax,
> they are not the original creators, they only serve to dilute the
> original story.
There are some things in life that are hard to get wrong. Telling me that
they were told to call them "child" is one of them. It's a little hard to
forget that in this context.
> > > > Well as GAINAX was the one suggesting that ADV make the very
> > > > alterations that you are calling corruptions, one would conclude
that
> > > > GAINAX is the one you are blaming for the corruptions.
> > >
> > > Once again, saying that Gainax suggested it doesn't make it so.
> > > Please provide some sort of evidence so support your wild
> > > allegations.
> >
> > You have already been told to go talk to the stone wall! :P
>
> So you can't provide any evidence, and thus everything that you
> are saying is unsupported. I however have provided evidence that
> the use of Children for instance was intentional...
You have told me something about the original tapes which I conveniently do
not have. You expect me to trust you yet you will not do me the same
courtesy. Is it because my story is less believable? No, where is your
statement from GAINAX telling you that children was deliberate mistake as
opposed to a misinterpretation.
Disaster
> "Michael Wignall" <wi...@evangelion.com> wrote in message
> news:O2OE8.1213$C4.8...@ozemail.com.au...> > news:ue70aln...@corp.supernews.com...
> > > "Michael Wignall" <wi...@evangelion.com> wrote:
> > > > "Disaster" <disa...@disfanfic.net> wrote:
> > > > > "Michael Wignall" <wi...@evangelion.com> wrote:
> > > > > So you are saying that GAINAX originally screwed it up.
> > > >
> > > > I have seen nothing to suggest that Gainax told ADV to change it.
> > > > Franking I find it very hard to believe that they did considering
the
> > > > term "Children" features in official publications and the like.
> > >
> > > I think it's obvious that they are merely trying to cover up their
> > > mistake by blaming it all on ADV. They are simply calling their
> > > use of "children" as a special circumstance. But you need cause
> > > for that kind of usage and it's not there!
> >
> > You are avoiding the question. You stated that ADV were
> > told to change it. Prove that please.
> >
> > want to change it.
> >
> > > > them all at one point. The are more than one Rei. There
> > > > _are_ Reis, plural, this as a singular Rei is a child, many
> > > > Reis are children.
> > >
> > > Tsk, they are not all soul bearing Rei's, thus they are not truly Rei.
> > > Therefore, only the active Rei that has the soul of Lilith is truly
Rei.
> >
> > They don't have to have souls to be called Reis. Ritsuko's controller
> > lists them all calling them Rei-004, Rei-005, Rei-006 etc. There
> > are multiple Reis.
> >
> > http://homepage.powerup.com.au/~wignall/evaremote001.jpg
> >
> > Plural - First Children.
> >
> > > > clear. If you don't want to believe it then that's your own problem.
> > >
> > > Well that's the problem isn't it? I can't, therefore it's up to you to
> > prove
> > > it to me. The cloestest to original that I have is a SUB of tape 2.
> Still
> > in
> > > Sydney.
> >
> > I don't have to prove anything. I really don't care if you don't
> > believe it. Anyone who listens to the original will know the
> > truth, if you can't get your hands on the original dialouge that's
> > your own problem.
> > >
>
what
alive
> and living and has a soul. The other's are just bodies waiting to be used
if
> that picture.. but what else could they be called? "empty bodies"? Thats
> hardly a meaningful label is it. "rei #1 #2 #3" etc. is meaningful and we
as
> the watchers and the ppl actually there immediately know whats being
refered
that
> has a body and a soul and lives. Of that there is only one.. since theres
> only one lileth soul. And as for the simple case of grammar, I dont know
if
> it was a change made because of Gainax or not, but it _feels_ more natural
> First Children" is not gramatically correct. 1st, 2nd, 3rd etc. can't be
> used with just a plural or a word like that without another word
suggesting
> the plural. For example. "The first games for the playstation sucked."
It's
> alright, but correctly and for it to sound more natural "The first _batch_
> of games for the playstation sucked" batch is a word for a plural. Or, it
> could be "The first games for the playstation _were_ terrible" It's just
> basic English grammar. Of course, people using a foreign language word in
> their own language, like they did for the word "children" into japanese...
> it might just be that it sounded better in the sentance structure (or just
> indeed sounded better as a word) for japanese.
>
hardly
> the biggest deal in the world and makes the translators terible people who
> English audience. They havent changed the story with it, or changed the
> meaning of anything.. they just made it grammatically correct for the
> English language
God bless you. They translated the meaning. So we would understand.
Rudolf Polzer
> "Rudolf Polzer" <AntiATFiel...@durchnull.de> wrote:
> > Scripsit illa aut ille Disaster <disa...@disfanfic.net>:
> > > be referred to as a child.
> >
> > <smartass>"Anyone" refers to persons. Persons have souls. So "anyone
> > without a soul" means all elements of the empty set. Every statement
> > soul _can_ be referred to as a child.</smartass>
>
It was an example. Look, it is still true after removing the example.
> The statement above "anyone without a soul" according to the definitions
> impied and/or described means that the phrase can not use the term "anyone."
> As "anyone" implies, with soul.
That's exactly what I wrote.
Disaster
> "Celeborn" <ccelebor...@HERE-PLEASEhotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Changing the word Children to Child in teh translation to english
> > is hardly the biggest deal in the world and makes the translators
> > terible people who did a sloppy job...
>
> It wasn't a translation. The word "children" was used in the Japanese
> dub. Yes, it was used _in English_.
Which is still completely beside the point as the meaning was correctly
translated and the meaning was correctly understood. That is, job well done!
Disaster
> "Celeborn" <ccelebor...@HERE-PLEASEhotmail.com> wrote:
> <Snip>
> >
> > You seem to be hinging on this whole "Child" "Children"
> > thing on Rei... what about the others?
>
> No I'm hinging it on the fact that they actually say the English
> word "Children" in the original Japanese. The VA's were told
> to say the English word.
Which is still beside the point. It does not matter. Bottom line is that
it's the meaning that gets translated, not the words.
> > And as for Rei, there is only one proper Rei who is alive
> > and living and has a soul. The other's are just bodies waiting
> > to be used if the need arises.
>
> That doesn't change the fact that there are multiple "First Children".
Well, as that is not a fact then I guess yer right. nothing has changed,
they are still lifeless clones, nothing more.
> More than one Rei exists, more than one Rei pilots Eva-00, Rei is
> not a singular entity, there are many Reis.
No there are not. The being known as Rei is one and one only. the being
known as Rei has the body of Yui AND the soul of Lilith. The clones merely
have the body of Yui, that's not good enough to be Rei.
> Also in the end it doesn't change the fact that she was explicitly
> called 'First Children" in the original.
Which we have already addressed for you.
> > Yes they are labelled as "Rei" with numbers as shown in that
> > picture.. but what else could they be called? "empty bodies"?
> > Thats hardly a meaningful label is it. "rei #1 #2 #3" etc. is meaningful
> > and we as the watchers and the ppl actually there immediately know
> > whats being refered to.
>
> Yes we are, multiple Reis, multiple First Children. Not multiple
> First Child.
They are "clones" not "Reis."
> > "children" is a multiple for the word "child" .. a child is a human
> > that has a body and a soul and lives.
>
> A real world definition perhaps. Obviously not one that holds within
> the Eva Universe.
Oh but it does, as the translation correctly shows us what was meant.
> > Of that there is only one.. since theres only one lileth soul.
>
> Again the fact that there is only one soul doesn't matter. To quote
> the EoE theatrical program, under Rei Ayanami:
>
> "Her body was created from the salvaged remains of Yui Ikari
> after Yui was taken into the Eva, and numerous Rei clones were
> then prepared in Terminal Dogma so that when one Rei dies she
> can be replaced by another. "
>
> The clones are referred to as Rei clones. "when one Rei dies
> she can be replaced by another [Rei]". There are many Reis.
> Many Children.
It does not say many children, it does not even say many Reis, it says
"numerous Rei clones," note the term "clones," big difference.
> > And as for the simple case of grammar, I dont know if it
> > was a change made because of Gainax or not, but it _feels_
> > more natural reading and hearing it than children when
> > referring to one person.
>
> Of course it does. That's the point. You are supposed to
> think it is strange. You are supposed to wonder about why
> they called them "Children" and not "Child".
If that is going to be your only argument then I think I can safely say you
have lost this one.
> >"The First Children" is not gramatically correct. 1st, 2nd,
> > 3rd etc. can't be used with just a plural or a word like
> > that without another word suggesting the plural. For
> > example. "The first games for the playstation sucked."
> > It's alright, but correctly and for it to sound more natural
> > "The first _batch_ of games for the playstation sucked"
> > batch is a word for a plural. Or, it could be "The first
> > games for the playstation _were_ terrible" It's just basic
> > English grammar. Of course, people using a foreign language
> > word in their own language, like they did for the word
> > "children" into japanese... it might just be that it sounded
> > better in the sentance structure (or just indeed sounded
> > better as a word) for japanese.
>
> They were "The First Children" to pilot an Eva.
>
> It wasn't used because it "sounds" better, they used it because
> it stands out. "Children" doesn't make sense for Shinji and Asuka
> and Touji.
Well it does if you are talking about all of them. You can even fit Rei in
there and I'll say yes, at that point you can refer to Rei as children. But
that's so not what you mean so I won't hold my breath.
> Shinji was "The Third Children" to pilot an Eva doesn't make
> sense, and it shouldn't make sense. They make a special point
> in one of the Eva books, of telling us to ponder the significance of
> the term "Children". The whole point of it is that for everyone
> but Rei, the term "Children" _is_ grammatically incorrect. Changing it
> to "Child" destroys that point. They went out of they to specifically
> get the Japanese VA's to say "Children", they make specific
> mention of the fact that it is a different term and we need to ponder
> its meanings. This is a Gainax anime, they are otaku, the whole
> thing is filled with symbolism, references and in-jokes. I really can't
> understand why people keep insisting that they "didn't know what
> they were doing" and used the word incorrectly.
I don't care if they knew what they were doing or not, it's still a mistake.
An error is an error is an error. A rose by any other name is still cheaper
then a dozen.
> > Changing the word Children to Child in teh translation to
> > english is hardly the biggest deal in the world and makes the
> > translators terible people who did a sloppy job...
>
> That alone doesn't make them sloppy. That coupled with
> all the other flaws make them sloppy. If they had only bothered
> to check then Gaianx would have said "no Children is intentional,
> leave it in", instead they took it upon themselves to change it.
Actually they were talking to GAINAX. If GAINAX is as responsible and smart
as you seem to think they are, you seriously think they are going to let
their brain child run off with ADV unsupervised? You don't think there were
conditions and restrictions? You really think that there wasn't a consultant
there? Regardless of what I have said and claimed, if I have spent so much
on a project, I would not be lazy with it and I certainly would not let
anyone else be lazy with it.
> > they merely made it sound more natural sounding for an
> > English audience.
>
> Completely ruining the point, which is that it wasn't supposed to
> sound natural. It didn't sound natural for a Japanese audience,
> it shouldn't for us either.
It didn't sound natural for a Japanese audience because English is not their
natural language! They did not ruin it, they preserved it.
> > They havent changed the story with it, or changed the meaning
> > of anything.. they just made it grammatically correct for the
> > English language
>
> They took it upon themselves to change the original, when they
> didn't even know why it was done that way in the first place in
> the original. Just like a lot of other things they did (saying the
> First Impact killed off the dinosaurs for instance), they took it
> upon themselves to say these things, when they weren't mentioned
> at all (and in some cases were flatly contradicted) within the original.
We are sitting on the in NGE issues for now okay? I'm sure GAINAX would have
buggered off after the Translations were done. Interpretations of the
correctly translated meanings after that was not their concern. ADV did not
change the original, they translated it, learn the difference!
Disaster
> Disaster wrote:
> >
> > I'm one!
>
> But how many sane people would? ;p
Sorry, I don't know any sane people. :P
Disaster
> > > And in the process they have changed the original story and
> > > made it something different. This something different isn't
> > > the "true" Eva, this something different isn't what I am a
> > > fan of, and to put it bluntly compared to the original
> > > this something different really is rather crap.
> >
> > Don't exaggerate Michael. Of all the differences that I
> > have heard whilst being here, NGE has not been altered
> > so much as to be that bad. At most a few misunderstandings
> > have occurred. Nothing serious.
>
> Please read what I have said closely next time. I am not saying
> that it has been altered to be "bad" overall. Just compared to
> the original.
Please consider what I say next time you decide to preplan your attack on
me. I am saying that compared to the original it's not as bad as you make it
out to be.
> ADV were completely wrong in some cases,
> provided information that directly contradicted things in the
> series itself. The original obviously didn't have these problems,
> thus again obviously the original is superior.
I would say that almost without fail, the original in any situation is
superior to copies and translations. When you take something from one
culture to another there has to be loss of meaning on some level. It's like
taking jpeg to bmp.
> I would go on to
> say it was far superior to the ADV version.
That's "the" translated version, full stop. The only one that had the
presence of GAINAX and their approval BEFORE release.
> > > > That is the interpreters mistake, not NGE's problem. Or ADV
> > > > or even GAINAX.
> > >
> > > It's the translators mistake for blatantly changing lines in the show.
> >
> > No it's not. Those are put in their deliberately to throw the viewer.
> > It's the Viewer's problem, they are the one that has to figure it out!
>
> "To throw the viewer"? Did you translate it did you? Do you know
> the motivation behind why they changed it? The fact remains
> that they changed the line completely. I am a fan of the, Gainax
> series, of Anno's story, not some modified version by some
> western distributor.
How many years have we been in this group working around all of those events
that are designed to throw us? Are you telling me that they are there? I
see, I guess Misato really did kill Kaji, Toji never really had legs, Rei
really is an Angel and the Eva's are mechanical! It's all so clear now! All
these years wasted! Gone forever!
For the record, It's not Anno's story, it's yours!
> > > Many times, which only goes to prove my point, no one knows
> > > Eva better than Gainax, thus any "interpretations" made by anyone
> > > else are going to be misinformed half-efforts.
> >
> > Bah! That contradictions Anno's intentions.
>
> Anno wanted us the fans to interpret his work. Not us the fans
> to interpret the work of another interpreter.
Which is why they had ADV translate the meanings for us so we wouldn't have
to rely on unofficial Fansubs.
> > > > > The changed it completely. Like a lot of other times. There
> > > > > was no "correction" needed. They could have just done a
> > > > > direct translation.
> > > >
> > > > Which would not have made sense.
> > >
> > > "We'd better do something other than wait for that miracle."
> > >
> > > That makes perfect sense. There was no need to change it
> > > to: "Acts of men are better than acts of God!"
> > >
> > > They ignored the fact that they were supposed to do a simple
> > > translation and wholesale changed the line.
> >
> > Either one makes sense. It's the same thing. The meaning
> > has been translated just fine!
>
> It's not about whether it makes sense. It is about the integrity of
> the original story, of the original script.
Yeah, the meaning! How the fuck can you have a story if you fuck up the
meaning just to keep it word for word when word for word doesn't make
sense!? Great fucking job done there!
Ah yeah mr fan, sorry you don't know what hell is going on, but at least you
got it word for word.
> > > > Thus loosing the whole point of their job. Or even if it would
> > > > have made sense good chance that GAINAX told them to make
> > > > a change, correction or corruption whatever.
> > >
> > > You are terribly hypocritical. One moment you are saying that it
> > > is ADV's job to do the translations interpretations themselves and
> > > the next you are saying that Gainax made them do all the changes.
> >
> > What I am saying is NOT hypocritical. The fact that GAINAX
> > interfered with ADV's job does mean that I have said one thing
> > and then another.
>
> Gainax were the creators, they have a right to make sure their
> product wasn't corrupted. Obviously they didn't maintain that
> much control because ADV did corrupt the original, in some
> cases adding things that were totally wrong.
GAINAX did do their job. They ensured that our culture would understand what
they had created! They did that by supervising ADV.
> > > I guess Gainax told them to put completely wrong information on
> > > the video covers too?
> >
> > I don't know anything at all about the video covers.
>
> I am quite sure that they didn't tell ADV to put flat out incorrect
> information on them. ADV were just sloppy.
I don't know, I don't care, I'm not talking about it.
> > > > > You are welcome to be happy about that. Just don't expect
> > > > > anyone seriously discussing Eva to respect that. Eva was
> > > > > created by Gainax not ADV. I love Eva, thus I love the work
> > > > > Gaianx produced. Not the work of some middle man.
> > > >
> > > > GAINAX would also be a middleman then.
> > >
> > > How so? Gainax created the work.
> >
> > As I understand it, Anno created the work. Unless GAINAX is
> > also crazy I'd say they are two distinct entities.
>
> Anno is part of Gainax. Anno didn't do _everything_, other
> people worked on the story, other people directed stuff,
> other people did the animation, other people did the music.
> It was a group effort. Anno was just responsible for the
> main story, and the majority of the emotion that was
> contained within. Anno was the main driving power, but to
> discount the other Gainax staff as "middle men" is a bit much.
*Shrug*
I'm not so caring after my little outburst.
Disaster
> "Celeborn" <ccelebor...@HERE-PLEASEhotmail.com> wrote:
> > > They ignored the fact that they were supposed to do a simple
> > > translation and wholesale changed the line.
> > >
> >
> > If your complaining that the line implies religious tones when
> > there arent... well the word "miracle" means (from dictionary.com)
> > "An event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is
> > held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God"
> >
> > note "act of god"
>
> I think you are totally missing the point. An English, western, definition
> of "miracle" might ascribe it to "God", but in Japan it doesn't have to
> especially considering none of the members of Gaianx are Christian
> and don't believe in a "God" like that as such.
No you have missed the point that it's being translated for an English
western culture. Thus the translation you want would be inappropriate and
misleading doing exactly what you seem to want to avoid. Perhaps this is why
you are not employed by ADV? Merely super smart at other things. I'm
surprised you didn't pick this up.
> > I now look at the meaning of the original sentence "We'd better
> > do something other than wait for that miracle." ie. the PEOPLE have
> > to act themselves and not wait for an ACT OF GOD. so the translation
> > of "Acts of men are better than acts of God!" is exactly the same
> > meaning. No it isnt a literal translation, but the sentence structure is
better,
> > and it conveys the same meaning.
>
> It doesn't convey the same meaning at all. If they wanted to rely on
> an "Act of God" they would have mentioned it. They didn't though,
> in fact they don't mention a global "God" at all. Humans weren't
> "created by God in his own image", they were born from Lilith.
>
> A western, christain person might attribute a "miricale" to "God".
> However some western people might attribute it to something
> else, something "supernatural in origin". In Japan I would suggest
> they definately wouldn't attribute it to "God" and within Eva I
> would suggest that is ever more true.
Therefore it's a good thing that they did not use a word that would be
viewed as an act of God in the culture that they are translating the line
for. Phew! I'll go tell ADV that you love them now.
> There are religious references in Eva, but there is no "God"
> as such ever mentioned. Kazuya Tsurumaki even stated in
> reference to the Christian symbolism that "If we had known
> the show would get distributed in the US and Europe we might
> have rethought that choice.".
>
> ADV don't care about this though, they just go and throw _even_
> more references in there where they weren't originally.
You mean avoid the original problem.
> > and just because this brilliant anime has been translated to english
> > with a few tiny changes you dont like or agree with... doesnt make
> > that version the worst anime in the world and totally crap.
>
> It's not that I just "don't like" the changes. Many of the changes are
> flat out incorrect. They are wrong. Also please don't put words into
> my mouth I never said it was the "worst anime" or "totally crap". I said
> that it is far inferior to the original. It is even inferior to most
> fansubs of it out there (if you can still get them). It's not "bad"
compared to a
> lot of other anime out there, its just a very sloppy job. Because this
> is ever, despite that sloppy job it still is fantastic, but overall it is
> woeful when you consider all the totally incorrect things that were
> done.
And then reconsider them and find out that it's a good thing they were done
in the first place.
> I only just remembered the "KOA" one. That really is ridiculous.
I don't know what that's about! I'm focusing on the obvious save that ADV
performed here and now. the example you gave, the one you thought was a
mistake but was infact a literal translation of the intended meaning.
Disaster
> "Rudolf Polzer" <AntiATFiel...@durchnull.de> wrote:
> > Scripsit illa aut ille Michael Wignall <wi...@evangelion.com>:
> > > I think you are totally missing the point. An English, western,
> > > definition of "miracle" might ascribe it to "God", but in Japan
> > > it doesn't have to especially considering none of the members of
> > > Gaianx are Christian and don't believe in a "God" like that as such.
> >
> > this part of the translation _is_ free, but it's up to anyone on his own
> > whether such things are good or not.
>
> Literal Translation:
> "We'd better do something other than wait for that miracle."
>
> ADV translation:
> "Acts of men are better than acts of God!"
>
> Lets put it in context here as well:
>
> ----------
> ---------
>
> And we know who that "somebody" is. Not "God", but
> Gendou and Ritsuko.
>
> Changing it to "acts of God", completely changes the meaning
> of that whole passage.
You are so over analyzing this. We get the same msg in ADV's work.
> So when it comes to judging the translation you not only have
> to look at how literal it is with respect to the original Japanese,
> but also how it affects on the overall translation. Its about
> continuity, it's about Gaianx's with not to keep "God" out
> of it, its about the fact that ADV changed the sentence to
> make it sound "cooler" when its not their job to do that.
Have you read the mission statement? Or have you just decided for them what
their job is?
> If you want to analyse another passage then how about
> this one from episode 8, when Gendou is talking to Kaji
> about escaping.
>
> A literal translation of what Kaji says is: "I understand/know"
>
> The ADV dub has him saying: "Heh, of course I can!"
So?
Disaster
> stupid cocky statements like that to prove it. Once again its a
> case of ADV changing a line because they think it sounds better.
> I am not interested in what ADV think, but what Gainax did.
Okay, so don't watch ADV stuff. In the meantime, I'm gonna send them a thank
you letter for making everything clear and I'm gonna send roses to the
dinosaurs grave! :P
Michael Wignall
> > Because even though Kaji is a baddass he doesn't need to make
> > stupid cocky statements like that to prove it. Once again its a
> > case of ADV changing a line because they think it sounds better.
> > I am not interested in what ADV think, but what Gainax did.
>
> Okay, so don't watch ADV stuff.
I don't. It's as simple as that.
Any serious fan of Eva, of Eva itself and not some shoddy western
"interpretation" will agree with me.
Disaster
It is? I thought you were arguing against me. Heh.
Michael Wignall
> "Michael Wignall" <wi...@evangelion.com> wrote:
> > I think you are totally missing the point. An English, western,
definition
> > of "miracle" might ascribe it to "God", but in Japan it doesn't have to
> > especially considering none of the members of Gaianx are Christian
> > and don't believe in a "God" like that as such.
>
> No you have missed the point that it's being translated for an
> English western culture.
Yes but Eva wasn't designed for a western culture. I don't want to
see a "westernised" version of Eva (like they are doing with FLCL,
changing the Japanese references to Western ones). The original
intention of that scene was _not_ to provoke thoughts about "God".
ADV threw that out the window though and basically stuffed up.
> Thus the translation you want would be inappropriate and
> misleading doing exactly what you seem to want to avoid.
I don't see how, "We'd better do something other than wait
for that miracle." is inappropriate or misleading, especially
when this "miracle" is directly defined in the previous line
as the probability of a "self-halt". It stopping isn't an "act of
god", it's just very unlikely.
> Perhaps this is why you are not employed by ADV?
I wouldn't want to be. Your logic is flawed too, I am not
suggesting I could do a better job overall organising production
and distribution. I am criticising some errors that ADV made which
where blatant, and in some cases an indication of just pure lazy
behaviour. ADV are not perfect, they made mistakes, had
problems. I don't understand why you wont admit that.
> Merely super smart at other things. I'm surprised you didn't pick this
up.
There is nothing to pick you. Your logic is flawed here. As I said,
they changed the line completely, destroying the meaning of the passage
especially in reference to the later passage of who granted the "miracle".
> > It doesn't convey the same meaning at all. If they wanted to rely on
> > an "Act of God" they would have mentioned it. They didn't though,
> > in fact they don't mention a global "God" at all. Humans weren't
> > "created by God in his own image", they were born from Lilith.
> >
> > A western, christain person might attribute a "miricale" to "God".
> > However some western people might attribute it to something
> > else, something "supernatural in origin". In Japan I would suggest
> > they definately wouldn't attribute it to "God" and within Eva I
> > would suggest that is ever more true.
>
> Therefore it's a good thing that they did not use a word that would be
> viewed as an act of God in the culture that they are translating the line
> for. Phew! I'll go tell ADV that you love them now.
They used "act of God" instead of miracle. And you are suggesting
that phase would not be viewed as an "act of God" in western culture.
I suggest you read what I have said again, because obviously you
have missed the point entirely.
> > There are religious references in Eva, but there is no "God"
> > as such ever mentioned. Kazuya Tsurumaki even stated in
> > reference to the Christian symbolism that "If we had known
> > the show would get distributed in the US and Europe we might
> > have rethought that choice.".
> >
> > ADV don't care about this though, they just go and throw
> > _even_ more references in there where they weren't originally.
>
> You mean avoid the original problem.
They create a problem by what they did. It is a problem. It goes
against the original intent of the creator. If you think this is a good
thing, then I really find it hard to respect your opinion of Eva at all.
> > I only just remembered the "KOA" one. That really is ridiculous.
>
> I don't know what that's about! I'm focusing on the obvious
> save that ADV performed here and now.
There are many other examples of ADV's lazy work. In this case
they "translated" the English word "Core", to "KOA". If you have
any knowledge at all of the Japanese language you would reaslise
that Koa isn't a Japanese word; it is just how "Core" would be
spelled if written in Katakana. It's really sloppy of them to miss
something so obvious.
>the example you gave, the one you thought was a mistake but
> was infact a literal translation of the intended meaning.
The one that is a mistake, there couldn't be any "translation"
as it was an English word originally, and the intended meaning
was for it to be a plural, out of place, word.
So you are wrong on all three counts in that statement.
Michael Wignall
> "Michael Wignall" <wi...@evangelion.com> wrote:
> > "Rudolf Polzer" <AntiATFiel...@durchnull.de> wrote:
> >
> > And we know who that "somebody" is. Not "God", but
> > Gendou and Ritsuko.
> >
> > Changing it to "acts of God", completely changes the meaning
> > of that whole passage.
>
> You are so over analyzing this. We get the same msg in ADV's work.
No we don't. How can you even say that when you haven't seen
the original?
> > So when it comes to judging the translation you not only have
> > to look at how literal it is with respect to the original Japanese,
> > but also how it affects on the overall translation. Its about
> > continuity, it's about Gaianx's with not to keep "God" out
> > of it, its about the fact that ADV changed the sentence to
> > make it sound "cooler" when its not their job to do that.
>
> Have you read the mission statement? Or have you just
> decided for them what their job is?
Do you have any understanding about the western anime
distribution process? I choose Gainax's original, not a
ADV "interpretation" of it.
> > If you want to analyse another passage then how about
> > this one from episode 8, when Gendou is talking to Kaji
> > about escaping.
> >
> > A literal translation of what Kaji says is: "I understand/know"
> >
> > The ADV dub has him saying: "Heh, of course I can!"
>
> So?
Considering you accept that the liberties ADV took are acceptable
I translated that to "Of course you're right". Yes, yes I am right.
Thank you for finally acknowledging it (yes I know its a paradox).
Michael Wignall
> "Michael Wignall" <wi...@evangelion.com> wrote:
> > "Celeborn" <ccelebor...@HERE-PLEASEhotmail.com> wrote:
> > > You seem to be hinging on this whole "Child" "Children"
> > > thing on Rei... what about the others?
> >
> > No I'm hinging it on the fact that they actually say the English
> > word "Children" in the original Japanese. The VA's were told
> > to say the English word.
>
> Which is still beside the point. It does not matter. Bottom line
> is that it's the meaning that gets translated, not the words.
The meaning didn't get translated. They changed a plural to a
singular when it was supposed to be a plural. No matter how
you try to justify it, that is wrong.
> > > And as for Rei, there is only one proper Rei who is alive
> > > and living and has a soul. The other's are just bodies waiting
> > > to be used if the need arises.
> >
> > That doesn't change the fact that there are multiple "First Children".
>
> Well, as that is not a fact then I guess yer right. nothing has changed,
> they are still lifeless clones, nothing more.
There are multiple first children, they are referred to as such in the
show.
If you don't want to believe that, then again, that's your own problem.
It won't change the _fact_ that there are multiple first children in the
show.
> > Yes we are, multiple Reis, multiple First Children. Not multiple
> > First Child.
>
> They are "clones" not "Reis."
Clones who are referred to as "Rei". It is as simple as they. The
clones (soulless as they may be) are called Rei as well. There
are multiple Reis.
> > > "children" is a multiple for the word "child" .. a child is a human
> > > that has a body and a soul and lives.
> >
> > A real world definition perhaps. Obviously not one that holds within
> > the Eva Universe.
>
> Oh but it does, as the translation correctly shows us what was meant.
Again there was nothing to translate. Children is an English word
and in the Eva universe can refer to multiple soulless bodies.
> > > Of that there is only one.. since theres only one lileth soul.
> >
> > Again the fact that there is only one soul doesn't matter. To quote
> > the EoE theatrical program, under Rei Ayanami:
> >
> > "Her body was created from the salvaged remains of Yui Ikari
> > after Yui was taken into the Eva, and numerous Rei clones were
> > then prepared in Terminal Dogma so that when one Rei dies she
> > can be replaced by another. "
> >
> > The clones are referred to as Rei clones. "when one Rei dies
> > she can be replaced by another [Rei]". There are many Reis.
> > Many Children.
>
> It does not say many children, it does not even say many Reis, it says
> "numerous Rei clones," note the term "clones," big difference.
There is a separate section for "Children" in the RCB ! A separate
section for "First Children" as well! The point of that passage is
that it says, "when one Rei dies she can be replaced by another".
Another Rei, indicating multiple Reis. I suggest you look up the
definition of "another" before you try to argue that. One Rei is
replaced by another Rei. For that to happen there must be multiple
Reis.
> > > And as for the simple case of grammar, I dont know if it
> > > was a change made because of Gainax or not, but it _feels_
> > > more natural reading and hearing it than children when
> > > referring to one person.
> >
> > Of course it does. That's the point. You are supposed to
> > think it is strange. You are supposed to wonder about why
> > they called them "Children" and not "Child".
>
> If that is going to be your only argument then I think I can
> safely say you have lost this one.
You can _think_ that all you want. It is already clear you
think a lot of other incorrect things as well.
> > Shinji was "The Third Children" to pilot an Eva doesn't make
> > sense, and it shouldn't make sense. They make a special point
> > in one of the Eva books, of telling us to ponder the significance of
> > the term "Children". The whole point of it is that for everyone
> > but Rei, the term "Children" _is_ grammatically incorrect. Changing it
> > to "Child" destroys that point. They went out of they to specifically
> > get the Japanese VA's to say "Children", they make specific
> > mention of the fact that it is a different term and we need to ponder
> > its meanings. This is a Gainax anime, they are otaku, the whole
> > thing is filled with symbolism, references and in-jokes. I really can't
> > understand why people keep insisting that they "didn't know what
> > they were doing" and used the word incorrectly.
>
> I don't care if they knew what they were doing or not, it's still a
mistake.
Well here it comes down to it. You _think_ its a mistake. They
obviously didn't, they wanted to use Children, they did use
Children, they consider it correct, not a mistake at all. You can
think that their decision was a mistake all you like, I don't really
care. Personally I think that the decision to have a Rei character
at all "was a mistake", but obviously they don't agree. What
ultimately matters is what Gaianx did. You don't have to like it
if you don't want. They don't care, and I don't care either. Stop
trying to suggest that they didn't know what they were doing
though. They did know, you merely think what they did wasn't
good. I personally think it was very good, it made a terrific point
and I feel sorry for everyone who saw the ADV dub/sub first and
missed that point entirely.
> An error is an error is an error. A rose by any other name is still
> cheaper then a dozen.
What you consider an error and what Gaianx do are two very different
things. As I have said, I don't really care what you think of as an error,
it doesn't affect my acceptance of Gaianx's position that it wasn't an
error and it certainly doesn't affect my appreciation of the impact
the use of "Children" provides.
> > > Changing the word Children to Child in teh translation to
> > > english is hardly the biggest deal in the world and makes the
> > > translators terible people who did a sloppy job...
> >
> > That alone doesn't make them sloppy. That coupled with
> > all the other flaws make them sloppy. If they had only bothered
> > to check then Gaianx would have said "no Children is intentional,
> > leave it in", instead they took it upon themselves to change it.
>
> Actually they were talking to GAINAX. If GAINAX is as responsible
> and smart as you seem to think they are, you seriously think they are
> going to let their brain child run off with ADV unsupervised?
It's not about how smart they are, it's about how much they care about
the western release. Anno said it himself when he came to Anime Expo
1996. There were fans there complaining about Eva and he said, "it's
your own problem", "Too Bad". Guiana made money off it, that's all
that really matters. ADV introduced a multitude of flat out errors,
_nothing_ they produce can be credibly considered canon. If you try
to pass off their videos covers as canon for instance then any serious
Eva fan will likely laugh in your face.
> > > they merely made it sound more natural sounding for an
> > > English audience.
> >
> > Completely ruining the point, which is that it wasn't supposed to
> > sound natural. It didn't sound natural for a Japanese audience,
> > it shouldn't for us either.
>
> It didn't sound natural for a Japanese audience because
> English is not their natural language! They did not ruin it,
> they preserved it.
Ahhh... You don't understand do you.
It didn't sound natural for a Japanese audience, it wasn't supposed
to. ADV didn't leave it as it was as "Children" which would also sound
unnatural for an English audience. Not they changed it completely
so that it _did_ sound natural for an English audience, thus ruining
the point. It isn't supposed to sound natural, ADV made it sound
natural, defeating the whole purpose of the title.
> > > They havent changed the story with it, or changed the meaning
> > > of anything.. they just made it grammatically correct for the
> > > English language
> >
> > They took it upon themselves to change the original, when they
> > didn't even know why it was done that way in the first place in
> > the original. Just like a lot of other things they did (saying the
> > First Impact killed off the dinosaurs for instance), they took it
> > upon themselves to say these things, when they weren't mentioned
> > at all (and in some cases were flatly contradicted) within the
original.
>
> We are sitting on the in NGE issues for now okay?
The First Impact _not_ killing off the dinosaurs is an "in" NGE issue.
We are told "in" NGE that it wasn't what killed off the dinosaurs, yet
ADV still put that it did on their video covers, that is just plain wrong.
> I'm sure GAINAX would have buggered off after the Translations
> were done. Interpretations of the correctly translated meanings after
> that was not their concern. ADV did not change the original, they
> translated it, learn the difference!
In the process of translating they took it upon themselves to change
things because they thought they 'knew better". They didn't know
better. They tried to make things more dramatic, put more force
into certain lines and passages, and in the end all of this made
their release generally poorer than the original in my opinion. Gaianx
are skilled at making good anime, they know what it takes, their
script was excellent, it didn't need ADV's tampering. That is the
issue at hand. ADV doing more than they should have.
Michael Wignall
> "Michael Wignall" <wi...@evangelion.com> wrote:
> > "Disaster" <disa...@disfanfic.net> wrote:
> > Because not everyone knows that there are multiple Reis.
> > The fact remains that there exists many first Children. To
> > call Rei "First Child" would be grammatically incorrect.
>
> To have a child you must have a soul. Thus "anyone"
> without a soul can not be referred to as a child.
And this is stated within Eva where exactly?
The _clones_ are referred to as Rei. That _is_ stated within
Eva. Whether they have souls or not is irrelevant.
> > Its not just the name that is important, it is the name and the
> > fact that she is a clone of Yui and the fact that she is the pilot
> > of Eva-00. There are many pilots of Eva-00, all called Rei.
> > These multiple pilots together are the First Children.
>
> As you are required to have a soul to pilot an Eva, any clone
> without the soul of Lilith is not qualified to pilot Unit 00.
The Dummy Plugs don't have souls, they can pilot an Eva.
> As Rei is the pilot of Unit 00, the clones fail to meet this
> requirement and can not therefore be classified as Rei.
The requirement doesn't hold up I'm afraid, see above.
> > > > Again the book "2015: The last year of Rouji Kaji" explicitly
> > > > asks the reader to "ponder the meaning of the term "CHILDREN".
> > >
> > > That does not qualify it in any way. It is merely a reference.
> >
> > It points out directly that there is something to ponder. That
> > the term "Children" is significant. There was a reason behind it.
>
> True, there IS something to ponder, it is the advantageous use
> of a mistake to the benefit of the viewer.
You are to ponder why a word that normally shouldn't be used
in that situation is. Changing it to "Child" removes the conflict,
there is nothing to ponder anymore because "Child" sounds
normal. It shouldn't sound normal.
Michael Wignall
> "Michael Wignall" <wi...@evangelion.com> wrote:
> > "Disaster" <disa...@disfanfic.net> wrote:
> > Please read what I have said closely next time. I am not saying
> > that it has been altered to be "bad" overall. Just compared to
> > the original.
>
> Please consider what I say next time you decide to preplan
> your attack on me. I am saying that compared to the original
> it's not as bad as you make it out to be.
When was the last time you saw the original? Ever? Have you
ever watched the original all the way through? You have already
admitted that the closest you have to the original is a sub of
tape 2. How can you possibley compare the ADV version to
the original with any degree of credibility?
> > ADV were completely wrong in some cases,
> > provided information that directly contradicted things in the
> > series itself. The original obviously didn't have these problems,
> > thus again obviously the original is superior.
>
> I would say that almost without fail, the original in any situation
> is superior to copies and translations.
Yes, and in this case becuase of ADV's sloppy work the original
is _far_ superior to the copy.
> > I would go on to say it was far superior to the ADV version.
>
> That's "the" translated version, full stop. The only one that had the
> presence of GAINAX and their approval BEFORE release.
It got the "approval" becuase Gaianx were paid a lot of money.
It's as simple as that.
> > > > > That is the interpreters mistake, not NGE's problem. Or ADV
> > > > > or even GAINAX.
> > > >
> > > > It's the translators mistake for blatantly changing lines in the
show.
> > >
> > > No it's not. Those are put in their deliberately to throw the viewer.
> > > It's the Viewer's problem, they are the one that has to figure it
out!
> >
> > "To throw the viewer"? Did you translate it did you? Do you know
> > the motivation behind why they changed it? The fact remains
> > that they changed the line completely. I am a fan of the, Gainax
> > series, of Anno's story, not some modified version by some
> > western distributor.
>
> How many years have we been in this group working around
> all of those events that are designed to throw us?
Designed by Gaianx, not ADV. That is what is important. I really
don't care what ADV designs, it is not what I am a fan of.
> For the record, It's not Anno's story, it's yours!
I interpret Anno's story. I don't want to interpret ADV's interpretation
of Anno's story.
> > > > Many times, which only goes to prove my point, no one knows
> > > > Eva better than Gainax, thus any "interpretations" made by anyone
> > > > else are going to be misinformed half-efforts.
> > >
> > > Bah! That contradictions Anno's intentions.
> >
> > Anno wanted us the fans to interpret his work. Not us the fans
> > to interpret the work of another interpreter.
>
> Which is why they had ADV translate the meanings for us so
> we wouldn't have to rely on unofficial Fansubs.
No, the had ADV translate it because ADV paid them money
for the rights to translate it. In the end they didn't _just_ translate
it, they went they next step and added their interpretation. As I
have said, I don't care for the ADV interpretation.
> > > Either one makes sense. It's the same thing. The meaning
> > > has been translated just fine!
> >
> > It's not about whether it makes sense. It is about the integrity of
> > the original story, of the original script.
>
> Yeah, the meaning! How the fuck can you have a story if
> you fuck up the meaning just to keep it word for word when
> word for word doesn't make sense!? Great fucking job done there!
Tissue?
Didn't you _just_ say that the literal translation makes sense?
I think you need to calm down a little. You are contradicting
yourself. So which is it? The literal makes sense or it doesn't?
> Ah yeah mr fan, sorry you don't know what hell is going on,
> but at least you got it word for word.
Wow you are _so_ hypocritical here. You previously said,
"Either one makes sense" and now you are saying that if
they did a literal translation the fan wouldn't know what is
going on.
I have no problem understanding what, "We'd better do
something other than wait for that miracle." means.
> > > > I guess Gainax told them to put completely wrong
> > > > information on the video covers too?
> > >
> > > I don't know anything at all about the video covers.
> >
> > I am quite sure that they didn't tell ADV to put flat out incorrect
> > information on them. ADV were just sloppy.
>
> I don't know, I don't care, I'm not talking about it.
Why? Because it demonstrates perfectly how inept ADV are?
You can't argue against it, so will you actually admit that ADV
did in fact make a mistake?
Michael Wignall
> "Michael Wignall" <wi...@evangelion.com> wrote:
> > "Disaster" <disa...@disfanfic.net> wrote:
>
> > If you want me to believe that ADV were told to change it then
> > you will have to prove it to me. This isn't like "proving" that
> > they actually say Children in the original, anyone who has
> > a copy of the original can listen to it and see that it is true.
> > You are purporting to have extra information about what
> > when on, you are making these sweeping statements but
> > have never provided any evidence to support them. What I
> > would most like, if what you say is true, is a statement from
> > Gainax saying that they told ADV to change it. However
> > as far as I am aware no such statement exists (my thoughts
> > are they such a statement doesn't exist becuase they
> > _didn't_ tell ADV to change it).
>
> It's the same, I don't have the original and you don't
> have a statement, yet you still want me to believe you.
It is different becuase _many_ people have the original,
many people have heard it said "children". Frankly I don't
care if you don't believe me. I _know_ they say Children
in the original, I have listened to them say it many times.
If you don't want to believe that they do then that's your
own problem, "Too Bad".
> > > > Also once again it wasn't a mistake, so why would they
> > > > want to change it.
> > >
> > > Yes it was a mistake. It's wrong, therefore it's either a mistake, or
> > > GAINAX/Anno are stupid!
> >
> > It's not wrong. It was intentional. Therefore it isn't a mistake.
> > I suggest you look up the defintions of "intentional" and
> > "mistake".
>
> Hmm, indeed, two words, two different meanings. Very different.
> In fact they actually have very little to do with each other. Just
> because something is intentional does not mean it is not a mistake.
> If I take a gun and shoot you in the head quite deliberately does
> not mean it was not a mistake. It's not right just because I meant to.
I would think it was a mistake, you probably wouldn't.
Gainax meant to do it, they don't consider it a mistake.
If you want to consider it a mistake then that's your
own problem.
> > Not all the children in the world called Rei also pilot an Eva.
> > There are multiply Reis who pilot Eva-00, there multiple Reis
> > who are given the title the "First", thus there are many "First
> > Children".
>
> Hmmm, not all the Rei's in the world Pilot Unit 00, just like none
> of the clones in the tank pilot Unit 00. They Float.
They are still Rei's though, multiple Reis (plural) that's the point.
> > > If you didn't care then you would not be pressing the issue so much.
> >
> > I don't care if you don't believe. I just care about you putting
> > forward incorrect infromation. I am just trying to correct your
> > blunders so that people who read this wont be misinformed.
>
> I put forward information that either I know is true or has
> been discussed in hear before. Just because you are missing
> facts does not mean that I am.
We have discussed it in here before and concluded that there
is no evidence to suggest that ADV were told directly to change
it to Child. Unless you can provide any such evidence now, I
really don't see why we are still talking about it. Just so you know,
your "word" that they didn't doesn't count as "evidence".
> > Just because you have met them, doesn't mean they can't do crap
> > work. You are excluding the possibility that they could be wrong,
> > simply because you talked to them. I say they are directly wrong
> > in a number of places, they have been proven to be wrong in a
> > number of cases, and the "bottom line" is that they are not Gainax,
> > they are not the original creators, they only serve to dilute the
> > original story.
>
> There are some things in life that are hard to get wrong. Telling
> me that they were told to call them "child" is one of them. It's a l
> ittle hard to forget that in this context.
You couldn't remember when I first asked you about it.
> > So you can't provide any evidence, and thus everything that you
> > are saying is unsupported. I however have provided evidence that
> > the use of Children for instance was intentional...
>
> You have told me something about the original tapes which I
> conveniently do not have. You expect me to trust you yet you
> will not do me the same courtesy.
You don't have to trust me if you don't want to. I really don't
care. Any serious fan I talk to would have watched the original
(probably subbed in some language or other) and would have
heard them say "Children". Its a provable fact from the
original series. As I have said before, if you don't want to
believe it, then it's your own problem.
You are being completely unreasonable then to compare your
"evidence" to mine. You want me to trust you when you say
you had a private conversation where it was confirmed that
the change was intentional, and when I first queried you about
this conversation, about what was exactly said, you commented
that you couldn't remember, and when I asked directly if the
issue of "Child/Children" was brought up you said you weren't
sure. So no, frankly without any other supporting evidence
I don't believe that. Of course you say now that you were
told directly, but back when it first happened, and when I asked
you about it (a couple of days after it happened) you weren't
sure.
> Is it because my story is less believable?
Yes. Do you want to know why it is even more unbelievable?
Because despite all the other true evidence I have put forward
to support my statements, the fact remains that Gainax had the
opportunity to change it themselves but they didn't. ADV released
their videos _before_ Gaianx had a change to release their video
versions of episodes 21- 24. If this was an authorised change
by ADV then don't you think Gaianx would have made the change
themselves also? They didn't though, you can clearly heard Kaoru
for instance referred to as the "Fifth Children". All this makes your
story a little hard to believe.
> No, where is your statement from GAINAX telling you that
> children was deliberate mistake as opposed to a misinterpretation.
Their have stated (indirectly) that it was an intentional use of
"Children".
They used the English word Children throughout despite having the
option of fixing it. They use "Children" in their official publications.
I choose the Gainax work over ADV. Have you ever seen the
original Japanese Dub?
Rudolf Polzer
> "Rudolf Polzer" <AntiATFiel...@durchnull.de> wrote:
> > Scripsit illa aut ille Disaster <disa...@disfanfic.net>:
> > > "Rudolf Polzer" <AntiATFiel...@durchnull.de> wrote:
> > > > Scripsit illa aut ille Disaster <disa...@disfanfic.net>:
> > > > > To have a child you must have a soul. Thus "anyone" without a
> > > > > soul can not be referred to as a child.
> > > >
> > > > <smartass>"Anyone" refers to persons. Persons have souls. So
> > > > "anyone without a soul" means all elements of the empty set.
> > > > Every statement about all elements in the empty set is true. So
> > > > anyone without a soul _can_ be referred to as a
> > > > child.</smartass>
> > >
> > > As we are not talking about pi or even math, you are contraditing
> > > yourself.
> >
> > It was an example. Look, it is still true after removing the
> > example.
> >
> > > The statement above "anyone without a soul" according to the
> > > definitions impied and/or described means that the phrase can not
> > > use the term "anyone." As "anyone" implies, with soul.
> >
> > That's exactly what I wrote.
>
> It is? I thought you were arguing against me. Heh.
Only against your wording.
Your quoting is still *bad*. Get a working editor like vim and a working
newsreader. Look, I gqap-ed the quoting so you can answer without making
a mess of it.