<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.18928">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Eija,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>You may be the first person to write on the subject of
checking of subtitles.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>The obvious question it raises is what happens when the
checker decides a subtitle is 'wrong'. I think there is a world of
difference between an author or collaborator inviting a check from a
native-speaker of the target language, or a reverse translation back to the
original (neither of which seems to be the case in the example you give)
- and someone else second-guessing a translation. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>One can admit that there are some errors that might
be corrected without referral, such as when a subtitle appears in a scene
preceding its dialogue, but it is vanishingly rare for such gross errors to
appear in authored subtitles. Rogue-checking takes us even from further
from authorship and responsibility.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Even on the question of spotting (or timing) there can be
differences of style. For example, If a non-Japanese speaker buys a
Digital Meme DVD with alternative benshi interpretations of the same
master-script, one is effectively choosing between two different spotting
lists.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>If, however, the subtitlers were translating from the
original Finnish, but using the English list as a checking reference on the
degree of compression and the director's choices on elision, then I could begin
to see a justification and I wouldn't resist a signed subtitler trying to
justify a living wage on that tactic.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Roger</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>----- Original Message ----- </FONT>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>From: "Eija Niskanen" <</FONT><A
href="mailto:eija.niskanen@gmail.com"><FONT
face=Arial>eija.niskanen@gmail.com</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial>></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>To: <</FONT><A
href="mailto:KineJapan@lists.acs.ohio-state.edu"><FONT
face=Arial>KineJapan@lists.acs.ohio-state.edu</FONT></A><FONT
face=Arial>></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 7:39 AM</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Subject: Re: on film translations
(cont.)</FONT></DIV></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><BR></FONT></DIV><FONT face=Arial>> Thanks Elke. I am
still curious on why they would wanna check the<BR>> Finnish-English, as
according to the logic you give, there are far<BR>> more professional
Finnish-English movie subtitlers in Finland (where<BR>> they already once
made a translation), than in Japan. I have a<BR>> suspicion that the Japanese
translation company is just trying to cash<BR>> the movie distributor by
doing all these extra maneuvers. Not to<BR>> mention that nowadays actually
many movie subtitles are done in<BR>> schools as part of the class work,
meaning that the actual translators<BR>> might not get paid at all. Still,
the average subtitling cost per a<BR>> feature film in Japan is 30-40% higher
than in Finland, although the<BR>> translator does get paid in Finland (not
greatly, these days, but<BR>> still some).<BR>> <BR>> Eija<BR>>
<BR>> On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 3:13 PM, Eike Exner <</FONT><A
href="mailto:eexner@usc.edu"><FONT face=Arial>eexner@usc.edu</FONT></A><FONT
face=Arial>> wrote:<BR>>> According to Diaz Cintas and Remael in
Audiovisual Translation: Subtitling,<BR>>> indirect translation between
two languages via English is relatively common<BR>>> in the global film
industry. There are far more English/Finnish and<BR>>> English/Japanese
translators than Finnish/Japanese ones, especially within<BR>>> the film
industry (I mean, how many Finnish films make it to Japan each<BR>>>
year?).<BR>>><BR>>> Of course it would be better by far to translate
directly from Finnish to<BR>>> Japanese (since indirect translation only
increases the inevitable losses<BR>>> that come with translation), but
film distributors mostly care about their<BR>>> bottom line, and not what
academics and critics will say. (Diaz Cintas and<BR>>> Remael make the
argument that a better translation is better for business,<BR>>> btw, but
either distributors don't understand this or the additional revenue<BR>>>
does not offset the additional costs of direct
translation).<BR>>><BR>>> So considering that the translator doesn't
know Finnish, the Japanese<BR>>> distributor of course is only interested
in making sure that the English<BR>>> translation (that the Japanese
translation is based on) is accurate. From<BR>>> the logic of capitalism
that makes perfect sense, unfortunately.<BR>>><BR>>>
Best,<BR>>> Eike<BR>>><BR>>><BR>>><BR>>> On Tue,
Jun 29, 2010 at 10:54 AM, Eija Niskanen <</FONT><A
href="mailto:eija.niskanen@gmail.com"><FONT
face=Arial>eija.niskanen@gmail.com</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial>><BR>>>
wrote:<BR>>>><BR>>>> It is not of course an official one, but
I wonder, why the practice of<BR>>>> re-checking and comparing a former
translation, if the Japanese decide<BR>>>> to do the translations based
on the English translation of the Finnish<BR>>>> movie, or a Serbian
movie or a Norwegian movie or whatever? I am just<BR>>>> curious if
anybody knows a reason for this practice? I myself would<BR>>>>
consider far more vital to to compare the Japanese translation
with<BR>>>> the original Finnish dialogue, once the translation via
English is<BR>>>> completed. Of course, in an ideal situation they
would do the Japanese<BR>>>> subtitles directly from the Finnish
dialogue list...<BR>>>><BR>>>>
Eija<BR>>>><BR>>>> On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 10:37 AM, Mark
Nornes <</FONT><A href="mailto:amnornes@umich.edu"><FONT
face=Arial>amnornes@umich.edu</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial>>
wrote:<BR>>>> > I don't quite understand. So the Japanese subtitlers
are working of of<BR>>>> > (translated) English scripts? And these
are the versions the Finish<BR>>>> > producers are considering
"official"?<BR>>>> ><BR>>>> > M<BR>>>>
><BR>>>> > (Sent from my iPod, so please excuse the brevity and
mistakes.)<BR>>>> ><BR>>>> > On Jun 28, 2010, at 8:46
AM, "Eija Niskanen" <</FONT><A href="mailto:eija.niskanen@gmail.com"><FONT
face=Arial>eija.niskanen@gmail.com</FONT></A><FONT
face=Arial>><BR>>>> > wrote:<BR>>>> ><BR>>>>
>> I am adding to the previous, very interesting discussions on
film<BR>>>> >> translations a practical question: why do the
Japanese translation<BR>>>> >> offices want to do an additional
checking on native language -<BR>>>> >> English, before the
translate from English to Japanese? For ex. there<BR>>>> >> are
some Finnish movies coming to Japan, and the Finnish distributor<BR>>>>
>> has provided Finnish and English dialogue lists, of which the
English<BR>>>> >> translation is already producer-approved. Why
do an additional check<BR>>>> >> in Japan?<BR>>>>
>><BR>>>> >> Eija<BR>>>>
><BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>>
--<BR>>>> Eija Niskanen<BR>>>> Baltic Sea - Japan Film
Project<BR>>>> Kichijoji Honcho 4-12-6<BR>>>>
Musashino-shi<BR>>>> Tokyo 180-0004<BR>>><BR>>><BR>>
<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> -- <BR>> Eija Niskanen<BR>> Baltic Sea - Japan
Film Project<BR>> Kichijoji Honcho 4-12-6<BR>> Musashino-shi<BR>> Tokyo
180-0004</FONT></BODY></HTML>