Quote from LazyReviewer 3e191b

Because then I can know exactly what kind of sound is being made

Oh? You're seriously trying to tell me, that having a translation next to the SFX, or in the margins, means you don't know exactly what kind of sound is being made? That is an obvious, absurd, and pathetic lie. Are you just trolling me?

Alright kid, drop the melodrama and let this adult teach you a thing or two about the real world:

Ah, hasty and unprovoked condescension! Really shows how mature, wise, and intelligent you are! Especially when everything you proceed to say, to disprove what you condescend, is baseless and full of holes.

in a way that improves the final look.

...which never happens. There are no cases, even by the original artist, of where a picture that was made to be B&W, was improved by being colourized. You can't point to a single example, of this ever being the case. And to demand more money, for a worse product, that has a clearly lower value, is absurd and unreasonable.

I understand that you haven't come across a good colourization, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. We often see glimpes of them in the form of volume covers, or when the original author colours a page or piece of extra art.

Again, a pathetic and absurd lie. We all know, that none of those images, were ever done in B&W. They are colour images, originally made in colour, and always meant to be in colour. Early sketches, initial outlines, and the like, of those images, may have been in B&W, but that obviously doesn't count.

This really depends on the person doing the colouring. Yes, it's rare they do a good job, but that doesn't mean no one does. The world doesn't only consist of your experiences.

...except you can't show a single example, of when someone has done a good job, of colouring an image that was originally B&W.

Quote from Ruruskadoo

I have a feeling this will be about as useful as talking to a brick wall

Ah, hasty and unprovoked condescension! Really shows how mature, wise, and intelligent you are! Especially when everything you proceed to say, to disprove what you condescend, is baseless and full of holes.

Nice example, of describing yourself, BTW...

but just on the off-chance it's never occurred to you before, your personal subjective experience is, in fact, not universal.

So instead of providing any actual basis or argument for why subs or non-redrawn translations could possibly be distracting, you just resort to saying "Nu uh!", like a kindergartener?
Very convincing...

but it's obvious why others might struggle to focus on both the subs and the content of what they're watching simultaneously

Do you now know what the word "obvious" means, or are you just trolling?

Also, for all your defense of the original "art", a lot of SFX these days aren't hand drawn, they're also a font just like the text in the speech bubbles, so I don't see why replacing general purpose SFX like those is qualitatively different from replacing the speech bubble text as long as the art underneath isn't erased/messed up in the process, and the replaced SFX text's font matches the aesthetic/vibe of the original.

Yeah, okay.
That is a reasonable argument, for those cases. In those cases, it's fine.
But only for those cases.

Ah, hasty and unprovoked condescension! Really shows how mature, wise, and intelligent you are! Especially when everything you proceed to say, to disprove what you condescend, is baseless and full of holes.

Lmao I was right. All I have to say is, if you have to say this exact phrase to 2 different people in your replies at once, maybe it's because you were rude and condescending first and they responded in kind.

Not even the faintest hint, at addressing anything, or making any arguments. Just baseless insults and smears.
In other words: You confirm you're just a troll. Good to know. Bye.

Quote from zarlan

Quote from LazyReviewer

Because then I can know exactly what kind of sound is being made

Oh? You're seriously trying to tell me, that having a translation next to the SFX, or in the margins, means you don't know exactly what kind of sound is being made?

Or, you know, I'm paying for a translation and would like to experience the story as close to the way the original audience enjoys the experience in my language. Having stylized SFX in my language feels better than reading a little note or tag after seeing SFX I don't understand at first glance. It helps me with staying immersed while reading.

That is an obvious, absurd, and pathetic lie. Are you just trolling me?

No, but I'm getting the feeling you're trolling us.

Alright kid, drop the melodrama and let this adult teach you a thing or two about the real world:

Ah, hasty and unprovoked condescension! Really shows how mature, wise, and intelligent you are! Especially when everything you proceed to say, to disprove what you condescend, is baseless and full of holes.

Speak for yourself... wait, you are. Quite frankly, that you don't think what I said was unprovoked, after clearly acting out in the way you are, is telling.

in a way that improves the final look.

...which never happens. There are no cases, even by the original artist, of where a picture that was made to be B&W, was improved by being colourized. You can't point to a single example, of this ever being the case.

That Time I Got a Black-Haired Gyaru Behind Me When I Changed Seats (Fan Colored)

And to demand more money, for a worse product, that has a clearly lower value, is absurd and unreasonable.

You, uh, do realize no one's got a gun to your head and forcing you to buy a product you think is inferior, don't you? I mean, that's how the market works: someone puts out a product, if it isn't wanted it doesn't sell, and the people who made it learn a lesson.

Not everyone feels the same way about everything as you.

I understand that you haven't come across a good colourization, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. We often see glimpes of them in the form of volume covers, or when the original author colours a page or piece of extra art.

Again, a pathetic and absurd lie. We all know, that none of those images, were ever done in B&W. They are colour images, originally made in colour, and always meant to be in colour. Early sketches, initial outlines, and the like, of those images, may have been in B&W, but that obviously doesn't count.

This is the kind of language I'm talking about. Quite frankly, you demonstrate your inexperience and lack of understanding of quite a few things, and... you know what? You're young. In a few years you'll look back at this in embarrassment and then chuckle to yourself. So, I'll stop pointing that out now.

This really depends on the person doing the colouring. Yes, it's rare they do a good job, but that doesn't mean no one does. The world doesn't only consist of your experiences.

...except you can't show a single example, of when someone has done a good job, of colouring an image that was originally B&W.

I did in this reply. But I'm guessing you're going to find some way to say I'm wrong, even though art is subjective and thus there is no absolute right or wrong. Is it only a oneshot? Yes. I'm demonstrating that it's possible after 5 minutes of research, not that it's normal for it to be equivalent in quality. I've come across some brilliant colourizations, though that was so long ago I forgot their titles. But, I'll state again, I think that most colourizations suck. But you insist there is no colourization, at all, that is as good as or better than the black and white if it wasn't designed to be coloured.

You're the only one arguing on absolutes here.

Also, a good colourization does a bit of redrawing to make the colourization work. It's not just filling the gaps with solid colours and some after effects.

I'm a jack of all trades but master of none. Too many jars and not enough hands.

Quote from LazyReviewer

Or, you know, I'm paying for a translation and would like to experience the story as close to the way the original audience enjoys the experience in my language. Having stylized SFX in my language feels better than reading a little note or tag after seeing SFX I don't understand at first glance. It helps me with staying immersed while reading.

That's not what you said, and you know it!
Don't try to change the subject!
You said that having a translation next to the original SFX, or in the margins, would mean that you wouldn't know what sound was being made.
You said that that is the reason you have, for preferring redrawing.

This is the kind of language I'm talking about. Quite frankly, you demonstrate your inexperience and lack of understanding of quite a few things, and... you know what? You're young. In a few years you'll look back at this in embarrassment and then chuckle to yourself. So, I'll stop pointing that out now.

A perfect example, of an Ad Hominem:
Rather than addressing the actual argument, you instead insult/smear the person making it
...because you know, that you can't actually win against the argument itself, and are forced to just attack the arguer, instead, to distract from your lack of argument/evidence/logic, and fool people into thinking you're right, through illegitimate means.
(not to be confused with insulting a person, along with/in addition to actual arguments against what is said. That is not, in any way, an Ad hominem)

In other words: You are demonstrating, that you know you're wrong. You can't come up with any legitimate argument, against what I said, or in of what you said.
And of course you can't!

---

I wrote a bunch more, addressing everything you said, but...
The statements you made, that I addressed above, prove that you're a completely dishonest bad actor ...and there is no point in wasting my time and effort, on someone who isn't actually engaged in debate, but just lying and flinging shit.