>>184810410>to what degree are you morally obligated to take responsibility for the audience misinterpreting or failing to understand a work?
"Morally obligated" is too strong a phrase, but I would absolutely say that a localization's major goals should include to create the same possible readings of the work, to as great a degree as its possible to do so. Obviously interpretation and criticism are deeply personal, but if they're based in the work (as they should be), then a good localization is one that tries to make a work that offers the same basis as the original, despite containing a wholly new script.
Lines that come off as dorky in Japanese should come off as dorky in English subs. Casual speech should sound casual. It all sounds obvious when you put it this way, but this is what's key to helping the new audience draw the same interpretations as the original audience.
And it circles back around to things like honourifics. It's the translator's job to interpret what's behind the choices of honourifics, then present a script that leads English speakers towards similar interpretations. And yes, anyone with more critical reading skill than Joe Weeb will understand that this means including honourifics as-is is almost never a solution, for the simple reason that English does not normally use these Japanese words, and therefore sentences which include them will unavoidably and absolutely feel more 'off', more 'formal', more 'directed' than the same lines did in their original language. It is strictly impossible to create the same impression as the original by including foreign words in one script that were not foreign in the other.
Now, as to whether anyone translating Precure is qualified to make these sorts of judgements, and whether anyone watching it is capable of appreciating them... Those are rather different questions that wouldn't be very interesting avenues to pursue. We've all seen how those go.