Checking out the poster a little closer today in Gwangju I noticed something.
1억 is 100 million, so 10억 would be one billion, as the digits indicate. Why the movie's English name is "A Million" isn't clear.
The poster above says coming in July, though the official website says August 6th.
34 comments:
Is it about a billion won? Which would be roughly a million dollars?
I'll probably never watch the movie, unless I find a DVD with English subs somewhere down the road, but it looks like a strange combination. Koreans in Australian competing for American dollars.
Weird, especially with the poster and promo materials.
That's a thousand million.
At my taekwondo studio one wall is covered with posters from the past international tourneys. Fine, right? Except at least 5 tourneys in a row, the English and Korean for the women's tourneys didn't match. In Korean it reads "1st women's tournament!" and in English is reads "2nd women's tournament!"
This one-year off thing marches right along through the years. Nobody noticing and who-knows-how-many posters printed like this. La dee dah.
They also screwed up some other things. 1st and 2nd are right, but 3nd and 4nd?
I noticed that too when i first saw the poster 2 weeks ago in Mudeung Cinema. They should proofread their materials before printing copies (unless they have a reason why they used the word "a million" alongside a number that has 9 zeroes)
Actually, I have to disagree with you on this one, Brian.
I think the English here clearly indicates: "A Million 1,000,000,000" or "A Million Billion".
Perhaps the easier title would have been "A Quadrillion," but it takes the fun out of Koreans saying "A Million Billion" or perhaps more erroneously, "A Million One Billion."
Ah, those silly Koreans.
In Korean, when referring to money, 10 억, or 1,000,000,000, is used the same way we would refer to a million dollars or a millionaire. I'm pretty sure that the English name "million" would be trying to create the same mental image that the name conjures in the mind of the Korean viewer.
Nah, it's just a numerical fail. My students are always horrendous at translating high numbers, even the upper intermediate ones.
"In Korean, when referring to money, 10 억, or 1,000,000,000, is used the same way we would refer to a million dollars or a millionaire. I'm pretty sure that the English name "million" would be trying to create the same mental image that the name conjures in the mind of the Korean viewer."
Exactly.
Cultural understanding fail?
"Cultural understanding fail?"
No, 'fraid not.
Stafford, I totally agree.
I wish the number 'one billion' actually made sense.
A million = 1,000,000 - six zeros.
A billion = 1,000,000,000 - nine zeros?
But, bi- (2/double/pair/twice/etc.) + million (six zeros) should be: 1,000,000,000,000 - a billion (double million) or a million million.
Unfortunately, it is now standard to call a thousand million (1,000,000,000) a billion.
Maybe this will clarify a bit.
The long and short scales are two of the several different numerical systems used throughout the world:
Short scale is the English translation of the French term échelle courte.[1] It refers to a system of numeric names in which every new term greater than million is 1,000 times the previous term: billion means a thousand millions (109), trillion means a thousand billions (1012), and so on.
Long scale is the English translation of the French term échelle longue. It refers to a system of numeric names in which every new term greater than million is 1,000,000 times the previous term: billion (from bi and million) means a million to the power of two or a million millions (1012), trillion (from tri and million) means a million to the power of three or a million billions (1018), and so on.
For most of the 19th and 20th centuries, the United Kingdom uniformly used the long scale, while the United States of America used the short scale,so that usage of the two systems was often referred to as British and American respectively. In 1974, the government of the UK abandoned the long scale, so that the UK now exclusively applies the short scale interpretation in mass media and official usage.Although some residual usage of the long scale continues in the UK,the phrases British usage and American usage are no longer accurate nor helpful characterizations. The two systems can be a subject of misunderstanding or controversy. Usage changes can evoke resentment in adherents to the older system, while national differences of any kind can acquire jingoistic overtones.
Many countries, including most in continental Europe, use the long scale. There are other numbering systems which are neither long nor short scale such as the Chinese numbering system, the Indian numbering system, the Japanese numbering system, and the KOREAN numbering system.
Source: wikipedia
As someone who has done quite a lot of subtitle work in the Korean entertainment industry, let me explain something you probably already know:
Translations can be direct or interpretive. In most cases, the English titles of foreign films are translated for easier cultural association and effectiveness. (If they're professional jobs, that is, which isn't always the case.) Take Park Chanwook's 박쥐, for instance. Which is a more-effective title: 'Bat' or 'Thirst'? Or how about 타짜? Does 'Tajja' work better on US audiences than 'Tazza: The High Rollers,' a title that provides American audiences with at least some context as to what the film is about?
So you can have direct translations or interpretive ones. Most of the time, I would agree that interpretive is the way to go. "A Billion" doesn't have the associative impact that "A Million" does. Just go to imdb.com and compare the number of movies with "billion" in its title to the number with "million." (I did it for you; the answer is 35 to 320.) In the end, though, that's a matter of opinion.
Skindleshanks was quite right when he wrote that in Korea 10억 is used much in the same way we use "a million," both associatively and financially. Therefore, the title isn't a "fail," as you, Brian, were a little too quick to call it. You can argue that you think "A Billion" is a better, more accurately translated title, and that's fine; but by the title of your post it's clear that you're ignorant of how movies are translated here and too hasty to point out that something is "wrong." Trust me, 'A Million' isn't the lazy or uninformed English title you were so quick to label it.
Arvinsign and Sparkles - thanks for the info.
Arv. - I'd always wondered why the British and Americans used different numbering systems. At least I now understand the logic behind what was seemingly illogical.
Spkl. - it's nice to hear from someone doing a good job in the subtitle business - keep it up.
I think, though, considering how much awful translation that we see in Korea, it's understandable that some would see this as just another example.
I watch the Discovery Channel a lot, and I've seen a very wide range of quality in the of the interpretation. For instance, I appreciate the conversion of imperial units in American documentaries, as I am not familiar with some of them, to metric. I'm sure that means extra work, when it would be easier just to translate the amounts directly - 500 feet = 500 피트.
And (also relating to Discovery), I've been told by a highly educated, adult Korean student of mine that the (Korean) vocabulary is very difficult/obscure/technical and that she found it easier to ignore the subtitles and just listen to the English voice-over. So, I appreciate that it must be very difficult to interpret scientific English into scientific Korean - and do it well.
But, I've seen some inexcusable mistakes. There's a big difference between 15 and 50 - especially when it's a percentage. Also, and I know the way Koreans agree to a negative question with a 'yes,' I've seen subtitles that state the opposite of what was said.
I suspect that in subtitle work, like many other fields in Korea, there's a lot of pressure and a huge workload. Perhaps the interpreters are stressed out, overworked, and have very little time to check their work.
Perhaps Sparkles could give us the inside story - in your experience, is that the way it is? Do you know how other companies operate? Are my suspicions accurate?
I think the discussion on this post has been quite reasonable - going from laughing at something that seemed to be a silly mistake, to trying to understand and explain it.
Yeah, I'd like to learn a little more about the translation/subtitle field myself.
Thanks for the information, Sparkles, it was interesting to read.
I still think it's a questionable choice and juxtaposition, though, and could have probably been better rendered.
Schplook, I do recall seeing frequent numerical errors in the Discovery Channel subtitles. But I haven't seen them lately. Because they took away Discovery. But on Law and Order, CSI, etc., it's not uncommon.
Brian is right.
No matter how you slice it, the translation of this number is not 'one million."
One million is the same in both British and American English.
1,000,000,000 is one billion in American English, and a thousand million to traditionally minded British people.
In any case, "The 'American' system is now standard use in British government publications, and is becoming the norm in many other languages."
source: Oxford English dictionary
http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/faq/aboutwords/billion?view=uk
the closest right term would be a "milliard" which is 1 followed by 9 zeroes or 1 X 10 to the power of 9 in notations.
so they can write it like this
10 억
1,000,000,000 (A Milliard)
Source: WOLFRAM MATHEMATICS
Weisstein, Eric W. "Milliard." From MathWorld--A Wolfram Web Resource. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Milliard.html
milliard
• noun Brit., dated. one thousand million; a billion.
source: Oxford English dictionary. Notice how even the Oxford English dictionary says that Milliard is a dated word. Still in doubt?
?If you are American, (a billion) is undoubtedly 1,000,000,000. This amount is known to traditionally minded British people as `a thousand million', and by some more adventurous ones as a 'milliard', though this word has not made as much headway in English as in some other European languages."
source: the oxford, again
conclusion: the poster is wrong
Samuel, I'm not arguing that 10억 or 1,000,000,000 doesn't equal one billion (or one thousand million), because that's clear. My point is -- and I hate to spell it out again for slow people -- that the Korean title of the film doesn't need to directly translate into English, and can in fact be more effective when it isn't.
Trust me, in most cases Korean film producers agonize over a movie's English title, and for good reason. This film will, hopefully, ideally, reach a wider market outside of Korea, in theaters and especially on DVD. There are a lot of politics and stupid translating decisions made vis a vis titling, most of them coming from within the television industry, but movie producers are increasingly realizing that their product will be scrutinized, and they have, in recent years, done a commendable job of separating themselves from one-off broadcasts in that regard.
Still, in too many cases a title's translation will never be agreed upon (see: The Bicycle Thief/The Bicycle Thieves). Sometimes it's the producers' decision, sometimes it's the director's (Park Chanwook, for example, successfully had 복수는 나의 것 changed from 'Vengeance is Mine' -- a direct translation but also the title of numerous other films -- to the unique 'Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance). In every case, however, there's a lot of thought put into it.
I agree with Brian that the title "A Million" looks horrible so close to the numeral 1,000,000,000, but, again, the title "A Million" is a good, reasonable interpretation of the film's title, 10억.
Trust me, you don't want direct-inaccurate translations of foreign film titles. At least I hope you don't. Because, personally, I'd rather watch 'Sympathy for Lady Vengeance' than 'Kind Ms. Geumja.'
Please let the professionals do their jobs, and refrain from the armchair quarterbacking.
Sparkles
Well, I hate to spell it out again for retarded people, but here goes.
I have taken a translation course. It is impossible to translate French word for word into English, because one would just get a mess. When no exact translation will do, one tries to find an equivalent in the target language. So you are not telling me anything new.
However, there is an exact translation of this number, and it is a billion. Translators cannot assume what an author might have meant, but are rather constrained to be a literal as possible unless context tells otherwise.
Since there is no context on this movie poster, but rather just a number, I have no idea how you or a producer or a board of directors or their grandmothers can possibly know what the real meaning is. Unless you are a mind reader, then you must really be retarded.
I appreciate what Sparkles is saying about translating the idea, and I appreciate the insight he has into what they might have been trying to do. But, they really should have come up with a better English name. "A Million" doesn't really say anything about the movie, and isn't clearer than "A Billion." Moreover pairing "A Million" with 1,000,000,000 just looks stupid, and clearly I'm not the only one who noticed.
Of course, we have to wonder why there's a specific English name at all. It's a Korean movie coming out in Korea.
Explaining to somebody that "it means a billion won"---does it?---takes even less effort than explaining the cultural weight of "billion" in Korea, and can be done without having to cover up why they wrote A Million above1,000,000,000.
Nah, "a million" is quite clear. Sparkles is right. Listen to someone say "He made a million last year" and nobody is going to ask "A million what?"
The only error here is putting the number so close to the English title, but the English title A Million is better than A Billion. Say billion and you usually begin thinking about population and government funding, whereas a million has stronger associations with money that your average person can access with enough work (or dishonesty).
Also, one area where I think a direct translation wasn't all that helpful was choosing "The Good, The Bad, The Weird" as the title for 좋은 놈, 나쁜 놈, 이상한 놈. For English countries they should have just called it Nom Nom Nom.
Mithridates:
Too bad there is no mention on the poster that "a million" refers here to money in English. The number might refer to people, or litres, or kilograms, or minutes. One persoon in Korea is one person in America. One million people in Korea is one million people in America. Ergo,...
Samuel:
Right. It might have been better to call it "A Sweet Million" or something like that (depending on what kind of movie it is) to clarify it a bit. It's certainly not the best title, just marginally better than calling it A Billion.
"I have taken a translation course."
Good for you. But you have two people who have actually worked/work in subtitling and translation telling you 'A Million' works better as a title.
You keep stressing that
translations should be as direct as possible, if possible, which just goes to prove how ignorant you are about translating. Should 친절한 금자씨 be 'Kind Ms. Geumja,' then?
"The number might refer to people, or litres, or kilograms, or minutes."
You can't really be that obtuse, can you? If you want proof that the title refers to money, watch the trailer.
"The number might refer to people, or litres, or kilograms, or minutes."
You can't really be that obtuse, can you? If you want proof that the title refers to money, watch the trailer.
Bahahah.
End of the day Korean movie english titles rarely ever match the original Korean title (vis a vis D-war or gwaemool). The poster is kind of funny when you know english and korean numbers and realize there's a mismatch.
Sparkels wrote:
" But you have two people who have actually worked/work in subtitling and translation telling you 'A Million' works better as a title."
Everyone thinks they can translate just because their language happens to be English. Working as a translator for movies in Korea? Wow-- let me put that one on my resume.
"You keep stressing that
translations should be as direct as possible, if possible, which just goes to prove how ignorant you are about translating. Should 친절한 금자씨 be 'Kind Ms. Geumja,' then?"
Nice straw man, idiot. Translation exist on a continuum, from the literal to the free. I never said that translation must be literal, but rather that context is needed to provide more information in order to translate.
Sparkles said:
"You can't really be that obtuse, can you? If you want proof that the title refers to money, watch the trailer."
You are an asshole, first, because you love to throw insults when I disagree with you. Go translate ad hominem.
Second, you have only proven my point about the movie title, by insisting that I need to see the trailer. So I need to watch the movie first before I can know what the movie is about? Ha ha-- now go take a logic class, you fucking moron.
"Go translate ad hominem."
Quite ironic coming from someone who has called me "retarded," an "idiot," an "asshole," and a "fucking moron."
Sparkles:
Something you typically fail to mention: all my insults followed your first insult.
Sparkles said "My point is -- and I hate to spell it out again for slow people --"
If you don't like insults, then don't start with them. Otherwise, suck it up, Big Boy.
Sorry Samuel but you were being extremely obtuse. Sparkles was merely pointing out your argument required others to be as obtuse to accept it. It's not an ad hominem fallacy if it's true and relevant to the point.
Like why would a studio call a movie "Seven"? Gosh, shouldn't they make it clear in the movie it's about the seven deadly sins?
Not sure there's any rule that a movie title (Korean, English, or in translation) has to 100% spell out what the movie is about.
To require such is obtuse.
MIndmetee said :
"Sparkles was merely pointing out your argument required others to be as obtuse to accept it. It's not an ad hominem fallacy if it's true and relevant to the point."
It looks like you two belong to the same book club. Yes it was an ad hominem. I also like your use of "merely" in the context of his insults. Laughable.
"Like why would a studio call a movie "Seven"? Gosh, shouldn't they make it clear in the movie it's about the seven deadly sins?"
Another non sequitur. The issue was not about naming per se, but rather about translating.
"Not sure there's any rule that a movie title (Korean, English, or in translation) has to 100% spell out what the movie is about."
If you actually read my responses before responding, you would know my answer to that question.
"To require such is obtuse."
You both sound like Les Nessman. Now back to your circle jerk.
Oh Samuel. English titles for Korean movies are rarely, if ever, translated. It's not about translation. That's kinda the point. I'm surprised you don't quite grasp that. Obtuse.
Better luck next time, okay?
Mindmetoo:
"It's not about translation. That's kinda the point."
You really should have understood by now.
Nice backpedaling. We are not discussing all Korean movie titles, but only this one, so what Koreans do in other circumstances is irrelevant.
"I'm surprised you don't quite grasp that.
I am still looking for an argument beneath the appeals to emotion, gaps in logic, and poor writing.
"Better luck next time, okay?"
You already agreed that the poster was funny because of a mismatch.
Flippity Floppity.
"Obtuse."
Yawn--you bore me, Shakespeare
Post a Comment