25 thoughts on “Fansub Review: [Anime-Koi] Dansai Bunri no Crime Edge (Episode 07)”

1. Ever since the TL party (god, there were some awful lines) I’ve been stocking up on the HorribleSubs release.

   O’ Great Sage, am I doing the right thing?

   Reply

   • Aww man, now I’m obligated to throw in a Crunchysubs review. There’s another 2-3 hours gone. @_@

     And that’s what I’ve been doing, but I must confess I haven’t really been paying attention to anything but the sexy parts of each episode. This episode and 06 let me down. ;_;

     Reply

2. Well, the typesetting’s good.

   Reply

3. http://www.crymore.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Anime-Koi-Dansai-Bunri-no-Crime-Edge-07-h264-720p5EE932D5.mkv_snapshot_00.04_2013.06.14_14.03.24.jpg
   Angle is wrong at the start, otherwise decently well-done though.

   http://www.crymore.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Anime-Koi-Dansai-Bunri-no-Crime-Edge-07-h264-720p5EE932D5.mkv_snapshot_02.30_2013.06.14_14.07.13.jpg
   This is wrong, the bottom half should clearly be shorter on both sides. You can see it in the kanji, they didn’t shift the bottom half, they shrunk it. Ironically, they realized this when doing repeats of the sign, but never bothered to fix the first occurrence.

   http://www.crymore.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Anime-Koi-Dansai-Bunri-no-Crime-Edge-07-h264-720p5EE932D5.mkv_snapshot_07.38_2013.06.14_23.20.15.jpg
   A lot of that is way too visible, and angle on Iwai’s name looks slightly off too.

   As for the editing…
   Actually, I already knew Anime-koi sucked at it. Never mind.

   Reply

   • You actually pay attention to typesetting? Oh man.

     Reply

   • Anime-Koi: not even once

     Reply

     • Oh, but I’m sure their DeSu subs will be good.

       Right?

       Reply

4. >Except Houko didn’t help Iwai during the orienteering itself. She helped after it was done with for the day.

   You can make a pretty good case that the entire trip was the orienteering, not just the activities. In fact, that’s kind of how the characters generally talk about it (e.g. at the end of the piano episode, Iwai describes it as a “二泊三日” orienteering).

   Reply

   • I go more into it in your review, but “orienteering trip” is different from “orienteering”. “orienteering” is an activity.

     Crunchyroll’s line is how I’d have it: “And you helped during the orienteering trip, too.”

     Reply

     • Apparently after googling “orienteering”, you’re right. Didn’t know what orienteering actually was.

       Reply

5. Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.

   The Royal Tenenbaums is not a shitty movie. Stop trolling, sage thicket.

   (That ref should have never, ever been made in this release, though – unless it’s a troll release. Is it a troll release?)

   Reply

6. The editors changed on this for for A-K like 4 times lul. I stopped at like episode 3-4 because of how much I hated the shows hair fetish crap.

   Reply

   • I don’t enjoy this show.

     Reply

     • Welcome to the club :D.

       Reply

7. Dark_Sage, regarding the issues that you mentioned… I’ve noted the legitimate errors for future reference/batching, but I have some issues as well:
   -> That, plus the corruption The Goods were causing has also ceased.
   I don’t see how you point to this as an error. She is saying “Goods,” so it’s an accurate direct TL, and the editor adding the “Killing” part is unnecessary at the very least.
   ->I’m talking about being an Instead of Killing Goods.
   I am guessing you don’t watch the show so you don’t know the terminology here, there are Insteads and Authors of Killing Goods, so how’s this wrong? First you say we should add Killing to a line it wasn’t in, as well as delete the whole term from this line where it IS present?
   ->But you’ve always helped me, Houko-san.
   ->Even during orienteering the other day…
   Ignoring the debate about technicalities of adding ‘trip’, I still feel compelled to point out that in Ep.06 she showed up DURING the fight and stopped them through the phone call mic thing. So how is this an error?
   ->Hey, Kiri. Why the long face?{muzukashii kao – feels more like frowning face than looking serious}
   ->Huh? Is that how it looked?
   ->Yes, it did.
   I don’t agree with this one either my friend, because I don’t think past tense invalidates the interpretation of ‘it LOOKED like I had a long face?” It’s absurd to argue that a simple tense difference requires you to read it literally as ‘my face looked long?’ Bakabakashi! His expression changes when she says that, so it no longer necessarily applies to use present tense, so the verb tense is not erroneous. I do agree that the third line here could be phrased better.
   ->{\i1} It’s because the party’s today.
   ->{\i1} Am I getting myself all worked up for no reason?
   The literal TL is as following:
   -[Hey, Kiri. Why the long face?]
   -That’s because the party is today.
   -Am I making myself more nervous than I need to?
   He’s responding to her question about the difficult facial expression she JUST asked him about, so it follows from prior lines, and it’s subbed in the order it’s spoken…
   ->Come to think of it, he {\i1}did{\i0} say he told someone about my shop.
   I agree, our (family) shop would be better.
   ->I’m sorry for leaving you alone.
   She’s apologizing because she wasn’t there after her mom LEFT, so he left him alone in her own way. From the Japanese, she’s not apologizing on her mothers behalf; That’s what it TLs to, not a mistake.
   ->Now then, was it a just a haircut?
   Um, this line she’s literally saying “So, was it only a “cut?”… (i.e. or did you want a “perm” or “coloring”. This is a pretty standard thing to hear at a salon)
   ->You were really scary back then, you know.
   ->It’s something like… the suspension bridge effect…
   Can you make a suggestion that doesn’t completely discard the actual TL but fixes the issue you’re perceiving? I’m not sure I see what exactly the major fail is here.
   ->In the friscalating dusklight, you almost seemed like a different person.
   Hehehehe had to be done, is it really an issue? It doesn’t obfuscate the meaning, and it’s definition (made-up or not) fits the Japanese, so what’s the big fuss, Mr. “Abortion Clinic”? =P
   ->It was the only time I’ve seen you like that.
   ->Usually, you’re just an ordinary, somewhat unreliable boy.
   ->There’s nothing so different about you.
   At best, you could argue that this is really editor preference. However, I’d argue against “special” anyways, because she just said he seemed scary and like a different person. Just because the directly previous line has her calling him an ‘ordinary boy’, does not automatically mean the connotation of the line after it requires you to use ‘nothing special,’ and frankly I think it’s a bad fit here.
   ->Just let the higher-ups scrutinize you as much as possible. It’s their little peeping fetish.
   TLC noted that he’s actually saying: “Just let yourselves be scrutinized as much as possible by the bigwigs and satisfy their peeping hobby.”
   Replacing “hobby” with “fetish” aligns well with the professor character as well as the general hair/whipping/etc fetishes present thematically, so why does that count as an error? It’s a little liberal, but hardly wrong or out of place.

   Reply

   • I’d like Dark_Sage respond to this post. I see a number of valid considerations here.

     Reply

     • >mfw you actually read this…

       Reply

     • I’ll respond to comments tomorrow.

       Reply

   • You sure give a lot of valid reasoning there. I wonder what Dark_Sage will say. Still, I want to address several points from your comment myself.
     Note: Please excuse my grammar since English is not my native language.

     ==========================================
     ->I’m talking about being an Instead of Killing Goods.
     I am guessing you don’t watch the show so you don’t know the terminology here, there are Insteads and Authors of Killing Goods, so how’s this wrong? First you say we should add Killing to a line it wasn’t in, as well as delete the whole term from this line where it IS present?
     ————————————–
     I am sure he meant that ‘Instead of Killing Goods’ is not prefect because there are only Instead for Killing Goods, thus making the phrase redundant. The way the sentence arranged made it seems like there are many kind of Instead out there and one type happens to be for Killing Goods.
     ============================================

     ============================================
     ->But you’ve always helped me, Houko-san.
     ->Even during orienteering the other day…
     Ignoring the debate about technicalities of adding ‘trip’, I still feel compelled to point out that in Ep.06 she showed up DURING the fight and stopped them through the phone call mic thing. So how is this an error?
     ——————————————–
     I believe the usage of ‘trip’ can somewhat make a difference and I believe Dark_Sage himself already address this on other comment. He argue that the activity of ‘Orienteering’ and ‘Orienteering Trip’ are two different yet related things.

     “They are doing the Orienteering on the Orienteering trip.” Maybe something like that.

     What (I think) Dark_Sage want to say is that Orienteering happened in the afternoon. The event where Houko helped Iwai happened at night when the orienteering activity was not in place. But that event was happening on Orienteering trip.

     God, I hope I didn’t make myself hard to understand there.
     ============================================

     ============================================
     ->Now then, was it a just a haircut?
     Um, this line she’s literally saying “So, was it only a “cut?”… (i.e. or did you want a “perm” or “coloring”. This is a pretty standard thing to hear at a salon)
     ——————————————-
     I am pretty sure he was complaining about the inappropriate ‘a’ on that line instead of the haircut.

     I mean, “a just a haircut?” Really?
     ==============================================

     ==============================================
     ->You were really scary back then, you know.
     ->It’s something like… the suspension bridge effect…
     Can you make a suggestion that doesn’t completely discard the actual TL but fixes the issue you’re perceiving? I’m not sure I see what exactly the major fail is here.
     ———————————————-
     I’m agree with you. Since two group treat this line with ‘Suspension bridge effect,’ I assume that it is come from the Japanese line. Either Kashiko doesn’t know what ‘Suspension Bridge Effect’ really is or the author doesn’t. OR maybe she want to implied that she was and is in love with Kiri because of all that event in the flashback. In which case that line was correct after all!
     PS: Really love that flashback. That’s some hot stuff there.
     ==============================================

     I hope I don’t offense you by this post. No offense.

     Reply

   • Oh god. Do I… Do I have to reply to this?

     …Fuck.

     Reply

     • May god be with you.

       Reply

       • I always am.

         Reply

   • -> That, plus the corruption The Goods were causing has also ceased.
     I don’t see how you point to this as an error. She is saying “Goods,” so it’s an accurate direct TL, and the editor adding the “Killing” part is unnecessary at the very least.

     The specificity is required in the sense of making the line read properly. If someone were to speak it aloud, there’d be confusion almost immediately since “the goods” has a vastly different definition from what you intended. The capitalization may make your intent clear, but that doesn’t mean the line reads well. It’s an intricacy of speech, unfortunately.

     ->I’m talking about being an Instead of Killing Goods.
     I am guessing you don’t watch the show so you don’t know the terminology here, there are Insteads and Authors of Killing Goods, so how’s this wrong? First you say we should add Killing to a line it wasn’t in, as well as delete the whole term from this line where it IS present?

     I unfortunately watched the show up to that point, so I know what an Instead is. My critique is that there’s no reason to specify “of Killing Goods” since Insteads only exist within the context of Killing Goods. It’s like saying “I’m a rock band drummer in a rock band.” It’s redundant to the point of reducing the line’s quality.

     ->But you’ve always helped me, Houko-san.
     ->Even during orienteering the other day…
     Ignoring the debate about technicalities of adding ‘trip’, I still feel compelled to point out that in Ep.06 she showed up DURING the fight and stopped them through the phone call mic thing. So how is this an error?

     orienteering != orienteering trip
     Orienteering is like a navigation activity. She wasn’t helped out during that activity, which is what the issue is.

     ->Hey, Kiri. Why the long face?{muzukashii kao – feels more like frowning face than looking serious}
     ->Huh? Is that how it looked?
     ->Yes, it did.
     I don’t agree with this one either my friend, because I don’t think past tense invalidates the interpretation of ‘it LOOKED like I had a long face?” It’s absurd to argue that a simple tense difference requires you to read it literally as ‘my face looked long?’ Bakabakashi! His expression changes when she says that, so it no longer necessarily applies to use present tense, so the verb tense is not erroneous. I do agree that the third line here could be phrased better.

     It’s a combination of all three lines that really causes the problem here, yes.

     ->{\i1} It’s because the party’s today.
     ->{\i1} Am I getting myself all worked up for no reason?
     The literal TL is as following:
     -[Hey, Kiri. Why the long face?]
     -That’s because the party is today.
     -Am I making myself more nervous than I need to?
     He’s responding to her question about the difficult facial expression she JUST asked him about, so it follows from prior lines, and it’s subbed in the order it’s spoken…

     The way it’s phrased in the first line combined with the way it’s phrased in the second line causes warning bells to flash. It reads like answer->question even though that’s not what’s being said. But the reading of those lines is problematic.

     ->I’m sorry for leaving you alone.
     She’s apologizing because she wasn’t there after her mom LEFT, so he left him alone in her own way. From the Japanese, she’s not apologizing on her mothers behalf; That’s what it TLs to, not a mistake.

     That’s a really, really, reallllllly roundabout explanation and while I can see while it makes sense to someone who’s informed of the context in Japanese and Japanese social dynamics, not even I picked up on that with just watching your subs. That’s beyond the scope of expectation for your viewers, so it’s still a problem.

     ->Now then, was it a just a haircut?
     Um, this line she’s literally saying “So, was it only a “cut?”… (i.e. or did you want a “perm” or “coloring”. This is a pretty standard thing to hear at a salon)

     Read it again.

     ->You were really scary back then, you know.
     ->It’s something like… the suspension bridge effect…
     Can you make a suggestion that doesn’t completely discard the actual TL but fixes the issue you’re perceiving? I’m not sure I see what exactly the major fail is here.

     I believe I did in Mezashite’s. The issue is the “It’s something like”. What is is “It’s” referring to?

     ->In the friscalating dusklight, you almost seemed like a different person.
     Hehehehe had to be done, is it really an issue? It doesn’t obfuscate the meaning, and it’s definition (made-up or not) fits the Japanese, so what’s the big fuss, Mr. “Abortion Clinic”? =P

     It’s a made-up word that I had to look up. (I haven’t actually seen the Royal Tenenbaums.) I don’t have a problem with references, but if they make no sense to people who don’t know the reference material, you may want to reconsider.

     That being said, if you liked how it turned out, keep it. My reviews are not the word of God (because I’m typing, not speaking).

     ->It was the only time I’ve seen you like that.
     ->Usually, you’re just an ordinary, somewhat unreliable boy.
     ->There’s nothing so different about you.
     At best, you could argue that this is really editor preference. However, I’d argue against “special” anyways, because she just said he seemed scary and like a different person. Just because the directly previous line has her calling him an ‘ordinary boy’, does not automatically mean the connotation of the line after it requires you to use ‘nothing special,’ and frankly I think it’s a bad fit here.

     Her use of “different” doesn’t have anything immediate to compare him with. That’s the problem.

     ->Just let the higher-ups scrutinize you as much as possible. It’s their little peeping fetish.
     TLC noted that he’s actually saying: “Just let yourselves be scrutinized as much as possible by the bigwigs and satisfy their peeping hobby.”
     Replacing “hobby” with “fetish” aligns well with the professor character as well as the general hair/whipping/etc fetishes present thematically, so why does that count as an error? It’s a little liberal, but hardly wrong or out of place.

     It’s the phrasing I take issue with. “It’s their little peeping fetish.” is the main problem. I don’t know if I can adequately describe how “bad” that feels to me. Just reading it makes me cringe. “fetish” is fine is as is the idea behind what you wrote, but how you wrote it is problematic.

     Try something like, “They’ve got quite the peeping fetish.” or throw in “peeping toms” in there somehow. Really, a lot of things would be fine, just not what you have.

     Reply

     • tl;dr You should make sure you understand how people use English before claiming that things aren’t errors. And btw I only disagree with one point here, and that’s the necessity of adding Killing to the first line. I think the capitalization does all the needed work to make it understandable, and adding “Killing” to the line would just give it unnecessary clutter, which is not something this script needs more of.

       Reply

     • >That being said, if you liked how it turned out, keep it. My reviews are not the word of God (because I’m typing, not speaking).

       You heard it hear first, folks.

       God’s writing < God's speech

       Suck it, religion!

       Reply