Fansub Review: [gg] Jormungand (Episode 01)

This post was written by Dark_Sage. He is Dark_Sage.


I often have… reservations about the quality of gg’s work. But how did they handle this show?

Release format: MKV (432 MB, 10-bit)

Japanesiness: No honorifics.

English style: American English.

Group website:

Encoding details:

8thsin’s translation critique:

Ji-hi’s screenshot comparisons: N/A


Table of Contents

Presentation Quality

Script Quality



Presentation Quality



Opening. Half the song was in Engrish, which is why the second screen shot didn’t have English at the top. The colors worked — black matches the credits and the mood of the show.

Ending. Yeah, this fits.



I like this… a lot. It was also the only sign they had to do.



gg includes Japanese commercials in their releases and this one is no exception (example below). I get it, guys. Japan is funny. You aren’t, though.

How many characters does it take to say “washed-up”? Just two.

This font is fucking terrible.

So grainy you could put it in a clam and have a pearl in a week.

Script Quality


Can’t say much on the quality of the OP’s text. It wasn’t really relevant since it was mostly just Engrish from the Japanese singers.

Like in the main script, gg couldn’t keep their tenses straight in the ED.

Main Script.

The “One, two!” part repeats four times, but the “Come on!” doesn’t repeat at all. gg left it like this because they’re either stupid or lazy. Guess which one my bet is on.

“life stories”, not “live’s stories”.

I think you mean “Him?”

Or maybe you did mean “He.” I don’t think any of your staff speak English natively, so this was probably intentional.

Repercussions are unintended, unknown effects, so by the very definition of the word… she wouldn’t be able to know.

repercussions -> effects

All right, that was pretty clever. Kudos for this line.

lol wut? Gun kid? Let me break down how to make nicknames for people cuz it’s not that hard. What do they say in Japanese? Kid? Then find a pejorative for kid. Brat works. Now attach something related to guns to it.

“arms-dealing brat”. Simple as that.

Hey, gg, this isn’t PBS Kids. You can use real fucking swear words, you know.

“That old bastard!” fits better here because it doesn’t sound like a semi-censored line shoehorned into a TV-PG program.

Old fart? I’m still smacking my head.

More shitty 1:1 translations. Get an editor, faggots.

“Save us a spot, gun bitch.”

Protip: Heads down is not the opposite of heads up. Really.

“Duck!” or “Take cover!” is the accepted standard in the English-speaking world.

Don’t you guys have 8th on staff? Why’d you pick some FOB TL?

Are you just making shit up now, hoping your audience sees that and thinks “Oh, I don’t know what ‘water boys’ are, but I’m sure that’s some cool military slang”?

It’s not.

Good job

but just as well, you also know you can depend on them.

I let the comma splices in this episode go because they’re not all that important, but this is just hard to read without proper grammar.

Lehm the Geezer. It’s his fucking nickname. Personally, I prefer Graybeard Lehm, but that’s just because I have good taste.

Tenses are hard. :(

“What if we went up against Colonel Matrix?”

“I’d leave you and run.”

And your line sucks because of and abuse. Come to think of it, the first part of the sentence is redundant.

“Intel is trickling in. Looks like this’ll be one annoying opponent.”

No. He’s saying that he understands Koko’s crew a bit better. He doesn’t understand arms dealers as a whole. If you really think he’s accepted the love of arms dealers into his heart, you need to get further into the fucking series because he sure as fuck does not.

Stop! Collaborate and listen.

Sage is back with a brand new invention:

Suicide. Find a tree.

Swing from the branches. Let me be.

Okay, I’m being slightly dramatic. But really, this shit is basic.

“Today, armies, countries, organizations, and families have a different meaning to you.”

“You are an egg that hatched into a comrade.”

Completely off. Get your tenses right. It’s not that hard if you watched the fucking show and understand what’s going on. Am I expecting too much here?


Timing Review

Listing on Entire Changes:

Scene Bleeds: [1]

Key-frame Snap Errors: 30 Errors.

Linking Errors: 8 Errors total; 8 Major.

Extended Lead-out: 1 Extended Lead-out.

Total Errors: 40

Overall Grade: 2.5/5

The amount of errors, especially linking errors over frames and scenes, as well as general scene snapping errors is just too high. It felt like a damn chore to review this release because errors were just all over the place. Having so many errors in scene snapping just screams lazy. The subs flashed on and off at times during character dialogue and just pissed the shit out of me. Sorry GG, I expected better coming from you guys but I guess this is how you are now?


Watchability: Watchable.

Timing Grade: 2.5

Visual grade: C

Script grade: C-

Overall grade (timing results not factored in): C-

Unfortunately for gg, I don’t have a fetish for imitation English. A mediocre script combined with shitty presentation does not result in something I could heartily recommend.

43 thoughts on “Fansub Review: [gg] Jormungand (Episode 01)”

  1. Not sure who you’re trying to snipe at with the last paragraph, seeing as you linked to a translation review. 8th thought the translation was pretty good as well.

      • [Xythar|web] what does difficulty 8 correspond to on the old scale?
        [EighthSin] about the same
        [EighthSin] 8 or 9
        [EighthSin] probably 9
        [Xythar|web] damn, sounds tough
        [EighthSin] “hard to hear + hard termilogy + specialized terminology (military)”

      • “The translation quality for this release was actually decent. It was extremely well edited (in the sense of improving flow and nuance), and there were tons of great lines.
        Some mistakes were present, but that’s to be expected for a show of this difficulty level.”

        C’mon, dude. You’re all about proper English, so I’m pretty sure you can read.

        • “TL quality = decent
          Editing = good”

          Did I miss something? Anyway, whatever. I dropped the jab since it was too offensive, apparently.

        • Yeah, I was very careful in defining “edit” for my TL review because I thought I noticed some serious English derps while watching it. I tend to filter out these things in my head unless it’s so bad to the point I can’t even understand the meaning, so I usually don’t comment on these mistakes (and just link your reviews lol).

          I know you’ll have a field day with other releases for Jormungand though. This is in no way an easy series to translate, and well, this is at least watchable IMO.

  2. Sounds like nobody can handle this anime. I think going back to Volume One of my offically released english version of the manga as I was the show would prove more useful.

    • The grade is a C-. My earlier edit did not stick I guess. It was a D+ before because I thought gg added in the “Hey, koko” part, but it was actually just Japan being faggots.

  3. This is some real bullshit.

    Repercussions works fine.
    Water boys is not military slang and was (probably?) never meant to be.
    The comma is optional.
    Geezer is not his nickname? Just some generic insult?
    It’s not for you to judge whether he’s their comrade yet. Leave that to people know Japanese.

    You know what the funny thing is, Dark_Sage? All this dubious popularity has gotten to your head. You think you can edit. You think you can judge where people who know more than you got their nuances wrong. What I find most vexing is that you’ve managed to gather a crowd of rabid fanboys around you who gobble up all the shit that you say. Oh, sure, you make a valid point here and there, but the better the script is, the more ludicrous your complaints get. It’s like you feel that you have to look for something simply because, uhh… nothing can possibly have few mistakes in the eyes of the venerable Dark_Sage, right?

    In the beginning you only railed against grammar mistakes and ignored Engrish, so people gave you shit. Now you rail against shadows on the wall and voices on the wind. The problem is that you are not cut out for reviewing because you are not a good judge of anything. Your command of grammar is indisputable by and large, save for some shit you must have picked up… I don’t actually know where you would pick it up, but at any rate: You are not a good judge because you fail to judge things impartially. Oh, I know you’re going to claim that you don’t prefer this group or that, and I agree. You’re a slave to your own notions and moods and incapable of judging according to coherent, transparent standards. You’re incapable of producing a judgment that is logical, consistent, and limited to what the judge is qualified to judge.

    Naturally, it doesn’t help that you are also a huge idiot.

    • Butthurt much?
      The only one that is even debatable is “repercussions”, whose nuance is disputed between dictionaries. Still pretty standard. Apart from that, what the fuck is a water boy? I’d like to see you justify that one. And since when are commas optional? In that case why is any punctuation needed I mean you can understand these sentences perfectly well right commas dont serve any useful purpose. Grow a fucking brain.

      • Are you telling me you don’t know what a water boy is?

        Please, be serious.

        Oh, and the comma is optional because the shit that comes before your hypothetical comma can be an adverb and you don’t separate adverbs and their verbs with commas ordinarily.

        • Apparently it’s some slang for assistant. Can’t say I’ve ever heard it before– probably some Yankee word.
          As for “but just as well you also know you can depend on them”? Apart from being phrased terribly, there is definitely a comma or two needed there. Tell me, does that phrase flow without pause for you? Seriously, read a manual on grammar. The introductory part is unnecessary, so it, like this section, needs commas. Just is well is used in the sense “which is just as well”. The fact that it may be able to be used differently doesn’t change that fact.

            • I certainly understood the whole water boy = boy who serves water, but the water boy = doing menial chores went straight over my head. I admit my slang is… rusty, but surely a more straight-forward phrase is appropriate.

            • Wait, what? I never heard the word “water boy” used that way in America. Would you mind linking us to where you got that definition?

            • It doesn’t really work as slang either, water boy, because their one real duty is getting water – sure, they may do other things, but they’re defined by the role. By contrast, tea boy works better as slang because they’re only called that because they’re the lowest in the office hierarchy so they’re always called upon to make the tea and do all those menial jobs you really don’t want to do yourself.

              Unless she has actually hired water boys and they’re gonna come at them with supersoakers…

            • Water boy definition on google, among others (look at some of the sources and see how helpful they are). I imagine that’s the origin of the word, going from serving water to. Certainly “assistant” isn’t the right word there– chore boy would be better. My point is that it’s somewhat obscure and unintuitive. There definitely could be a better word substituted.

            • Minions? Dogsbodies? Flunkies? Lackeys? Toadies? Grunts? Gofers? Peons?

              Okay, they don’t all work, but much more sensible than “water boys.”

        • So gg actually meant the phrase to mean “assistant”? And not just any phrase for assistant, but one meant to evoke images of the people who bring water to athletes? (For my non-American friends here, that’s what ‘water boys’ do in America because we take our sports super seriously.)

          That’s worse than I first thought because I had given them credit for trying to think of cool, badass terminology on their own even if they ultimately failed at it. I didn’t expect my “The Waterboy” comment to be accurate.

    • If you dislike the way he judges things find another reviewer who is impartial and everything else dark_sage is not. Personally I find his reviews entertaining mostly because he’s so opinionated and biased so please don’t try to ruin that for me.

  4. “Repercussions are unintended, unknown effects, so by the very definition of the word… she wouldn’t be able to know.”

    A consequence or ensuing result of some action.
    an effect or result, often indirect or remote, of some event or action:

    a : an action or effect given or exerted in return : a reciprocal action or effect
    b : a widespread, indirect, or unforeseen effect of an act, action, or event
    an unintended consequence occurring some time after an event or action, esp. an unwelcome one

    So by some definitions, their usage is correct in that sense… though I’d argue that it’s incorrect because they say “repercussions this container will have,” and the container is an object rather than an event.

  5. Water Boy is an Adam Sandler movie from 1998 in which he was a wanna-be football player who was put in charge of getting water for the team to drink.

  6. Dark_Sage making mistakes in a review? Mien gott.

    I never thought I’d see the day when I defended gg, but it seems hell hath frozen over. I realize this topic has been beaten to death above, but I feel there’s too much rage in the previous posts to be considered impartial. I tried to consider every side, but point out any angles I may have missed; I’ve made my share of grammatical mistakes, and I’m certainly not perfect (yet).

    “Repercussions are unintended, unknown effects, so by the very definition of the word… she wouldn’t be able to know.”
    Merriam-Webster has other ideas: “2a : an action or effect given or exerted in return : a reciprocal action or effect”
    In other words, it isn’t specifically an unknown effect, though it *is* a possible definition (2b on MW). I’m aware of the debate going about this one, but I consider MW to be the ultimate authority on definitions, so the usage is fine.
    Also, if you’re *really* fixated on using the unknown effects definition, changing “will” to “could” would make it so it’s unknown whether the effects will come to pass, but they can be ascertained through extrapolation.

    Not a mistake per se, but something that bothers me: “but just as well, you also know you can depend on them.” It’s wordy and ruins the flow.
    just as well -> still
    you can depend on them -> they’re dependable (I know this one’s a bit of a stretch.)

    >”What if we went up against Colonel Matrix?” “I’d leave you and run.”
    No, it’s fine as it was, though your fix isn’t wrong, either. “What if” is a weird phrase in that it allows present tense to refer to future events, though it’s more frequently heard in informal conversation. I’m pretty sure this is because it feels wrong to say “what if we will” or “what if we would.”
    I hear this sort of exchange frequently – especially when it’s mutual teasing.
    “What if your arm is cut off?”
    “I’d use my other arm.”

    “He’s saying that he understands Koko’s crew a bit better.”
    Yes, he is. However, if you add “more about” to gg’s line it properly conveys the meaning. Plus, considering his age, I would forgive them for giving him a more childish line by leaving out “more about,” even if it was unintentional.

    Another that isn’t an error and more a preference: “Today, armies, countries, organizations, and families have a different meaning to you.”
    Using “for” gives better flow. gg used the better preposition here.

    So, shall we have a rational discussion about these, or will they be dismissed as butthurt rambling?

    • What butthurt? You respectfully disagree with some things I said in this review. There’s nothing wrong with that. Here’s my response:

      1. Best practices. I’d say my change is indisputably right whereas gg’s version is disputably right. Why introduce confusion to the viewer?

      2. “but still, you also know they’re dependable.” <- That hurt to type. It doesn't read well at all. I didn't find the original particularly wordy, but if you wanted it changed, a simple fix would be to drop the "just as well" part. "but you also know they're dependable." 3. Best practices. I embrace slang and sentences with fucked-up grammar when it suits a purpose. Here, it suited no purpose other than to cause me to wince as I read the lines. Informal language is fine, but it needs to have value and I'm not sure you could argue the point that this "correct in informal situations" line added anything to the script. 4. No, no, no. This is bad because it reads as he's making a blanket statement about all people that sell weapons. In this case, he's only referring to Koko and her boys so it needs to be very clear that's the case. It's very important to get this point across because he HATES arms dealers in general, but you see him start to warm up to the Koko Crew (it's very gradual, but still). 5. I'm a little stumped on this one. Could you give more insight as to why you think "for" is better? After having searched the differences, I'm thinking this might be a more regional preference in phrasing, but I'll also look up prepositional differences after I get back from supper.

      • The “butthurt” remark was way off the mark. Sorry.
        1. I see where you’re coming from, but I wouldn’t say that there would be definite confusion. It might just be my writing style coming into play.
        2. Ah, forgot to have “also” removed. It reads a lot better without it. Also note that my note about it being a stretch was, in my mind, an admission of being an optional change.
        3. True enough. It’s not entirely wrong, though, so it could just be noted that you’d prefer it instead of marking it as completely wrong. Plus, it’s playful banter between the two; things don’t get much more informal than that.
        4. Wow, my mind wasn’t with me when I did this one. I BLAME MY MEDS. More seriously, I made a stupid mistake with this one by trying too hard to find some salvation. Sorry.
        5. Regional differences are probably in effect here. I’m personally more used to phrasing this context as “for you,” though I’m starting to think that I’ve seen it written in a publication as “to you” before.
        Now that I see your side more clearly, I see that it’s less “you are completely wrong” and more “your preferences for questionably correct grammar differ from my own.” I still stand by most of my preferences, though.


Leave a Comment