Fansub Review: [Hatsuyuki] Robotics;Notes (Episode 03)

Fansub Review: [Hatsuyuki] Robotics;Notes (Episode 03)

This post was written by Dark_Sage. He is Dark_Sage.

Twitter YouTube   


Now onto other stuff. Hm… What’s next? That Onii-chan show, methinks.

Table of Contents

Release Information

Visual Quality

Script Quality

Results

Release Information

Episode details.

Release format: MKV (338 MB, 10-bit), MKV (304 MB, 8-bit), LQ AVI (191 MB)

Japanesiness: Honorifics.

English style: American English.

Encoding details: http://pastebin.com/W69Nb5yR

Speed: Slow (>48 hours)

 

External links.

Group website: http://hatsuyuki-fansubs.com/

IRC channel: #[email protected]

SubCompare screenshot comparisons: http://www.subcompare.com/robotics%3bNotes/

Commie’s fansub reviews: N/a

 

Visual Review

Karaoke.

It felt like this was just a reused karaoke from another show. None of it really “fit” and the karaoke k-timing effect here was terrible.

Rating: Bad.

What the fuck, why? More reused, terribly fitting karaoke with poor effects. Fuck this.

Rating: Bad.

 

 

Typesetting.

Lay off the caffeine, guys.

 

Other.

\N motherfuckers, c’mon

Also, someone should teach these idiots how to use chapters. Goddamn was skipping around the episode a fucking challenge.

 

Script Review

Karaoke.

This is not English.

 

Main Script.

“It’s not like you have a man or anything.”

I appreciate the attempt to use nonstandard English to show natural speech, but it has to be something someone would actually say. As it is, the line does not fit.

Kai? What?

Like with H-K’s, I’m gonna suggest that you have “prior performance” here. Otherwise it doesn’t make sense. Why would a unit’s actual performance not equate to its actual prowess? That’s fucktarded logic.

From the comments section, korol has another interpretation which I think might actually be better: “I think the part at 7:11 is trying to say something like “The specs of the unit don’t affect the outcome of the battle”, rather than referring to past experiences.”

Misa-nee? Really? This doesn’t even make contextual sense since Aki isn’t fucking narrating this. NTR-kun is.

“What the heck are you talking about?!”

“nonsense” rubs me the wrong way here. Reminds me of my priest when I was young.

He is him? Geez, Hatsuyuki, way to make the big reveal.

 

Results

Watchability: Watchable.

Visual grade: B-

Script grade: B+

Overall grade: B

In contrast with Hybrid-Kaitou’s version of Funi’s script, Hatusuyuki accented all the lines it needed to, rephrased the entire thing to fit their editor’s voice, created distinct lines for the characters based on their personalities, and attempted their best overall to naturalize the subs for native English speakers. Most of the B-tier and A-tier groups do all this since those things are part of the job description, but I don’t really ever bring attention to it in the reviews.

Much like Hybrid-Kaitou though, the timing was terrible.

When it comes down to which group to watch the show from, WhyNot/Commie/Hatsuyuki are all acceptable choices. But due to Hatsuyuki’s delay coupled with their inability to provide a considerably better product than the other two, I’d suggest going with WhyNot or Commie based on whatever random criteria/criterion you decide to use to make the choice. “First out wins” would suffice.

31 thoughts on “Fansub Review: [Hatsuyuki] Robotics;Notes (Episode 03)”

  1. Think I’ll go with Commie on this one. WhyNot’s giving me rainbow karaoke and I thought their first episode was pretty bad. I liked Hatsuyuki’s first episode better than WhyNot’s, but that’s not saying much.

  2. ““nonsense” rubs me the wrong way here. Reminds me of my priest when I was young.”

    Did your priest also rub you… the wrong way?

    (Sorry, I had to.)

  3. >> It’s not like you got a man or anything.

    I forget where in the episode that happens. Is the complaint that nobody talks like that (I’d disagree; I hear that phrasing all the time IRL), or that the specific character wouldn’t say it like that?

    • Early on. Hover over the image or click on it and you can see every image is timestamped.

      It’s not that no one uses “got” in sentences, but you wouldn’t say “You don’t got a boyfriend.”

          • So, and forgive me if I’m being ignorant due to cultural differences, what is the difference between this line and others where American diction drops the ‘ve/have part completely. I mean, is it all right to say “you got da funk”?

            • It’s more of a context-based thing than a cultural one. Shortened/lengthened lines can convey different meanings even if the words are technically saying the same thing. In this case, the phrasing wouldn’t really work. It’s sort of hard to explain, but temp_late nailed most of it in his previous post.

              Hmm… I probably didn’t explain that well. IRC might be better?

            • Too, it’s mainly about the rhythm of the speech.

              you got da funk

              is a perfect example as each word is exactly one syllable/sound. This is not an accident.

              You don’t got a boyfriend

              is actually somewhat awkard because of the word boyfriend. A better colloquial expression would be –
              You don’t got a man, well because, a man does more then mend fences, don’t they…

      • Oh wtf I should’ve seen the timestamp. Thanks. I tend to keep mousing to a minimum on the nets. That said, the screenshots are also usually in chronological order…

        I do hear phrases like “You don’t got a boyfriend” frequently, at least in the South. Sounds fine to me in general, but maybe it’s just regional.

        • I mean, I suppose I could see a character talking like that if they were quite young and sassy, but while the character speaking does have a bit of sass to her tone, I’d feel uncomfortable including it in that situation.

          • I agree, after checking the episode and the character.

            “You’ve got” (or even “you have”) is the more common phrasing and would be what I would use. The “‘ve” gets reduced to inaudibility in some lazy conversational speech and may be dropped completely, but here dropping the “‘ve” may be subbing in dialect, probably inconsistent with the rest of the script.

  4. “It’s not like you have a man or anything.”

    I appreciate the attempt to use non-standard English to show natural speech, but it has to be something someone would actually say. As it is, the line does not fit.

    Actually, got conveys the sarcasm much better (believe it or not it’s because of the throaty sound of the hard ‘g’).

Leave a Comment