Talk:Tom-Yum-Goong

message: Over last night and this morning, I have simplified the plot by a large extent. I think that it is concise enough, and hence the template is removed. If anyone disagrees, feel free to simplify it further.--Kylohk 09:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All is fine, but I disagree with the removal of White Elephant and  fake inspection bit. It really is the motivation behind the whole plot. Kham's father spent his whole life hoping to give the elephant to the king, then it was stolen in a phony 'audition' that was supposed to fulfill this dream. It was the major plot point in Thai trailer, I remember this point so well because of that. Suredeath 10:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a little compromise, I mention that incident in the cast list that introduces Kham's father. Then at least certain details can be spread across two sections, while the plot bit should not be too detailed. Cheers.--Kylohk 14:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding the latest changes in the plot and the infobox 

message: In the infobox, it states that the budget for this film was 300 million baht. This is equivalent to 10 million US dollars. In the Box Office section, it states that it ended its Thai run with US$4,417,800, blockbuster business by Thai standards." Does this mean that the infobox is wrong, that the budget stated is the budget for bringing the film worldwide, or that there is a typo in the Box Office section? CeraSeptem 22:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A bit of confusion 

message: I've requested that this page be moved to The Protector (2005 film), so that Tom-Yum-Goong becomes the redirect. I've listed this request at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Uncontroversial proposals because moving to a recognised English-language title is in keeping with the manual of style (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films)#Foreign-language films). Gram123 (talk) 19:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I wish I could come up with better argument than I hate the Weinsteins' idiotic title for the film, but I am struggling to do otherwise. Thing is, the film has many different titles in territories throughout the world. Why settle on its North American title? — WiseKwai 19:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Hmm, the movie was known as "The Protector" only in N.A. It had its run under "Tom Yum Goong" as its English title in film festivals year before it even comes out in N.A. I really don't see much of a point changing it moving it to the Protector. Suredeath (talk) 05:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Page move

message: In South Korea, the film was marketed by distributor as 옹박 - 두번째 미션 (Ong Bak: The Second Mission).--JSH-alive (talk)(cntrbtns)(mail me) 09:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to mention it? 

message: A 3D sequel is planned for 2011 starring Tony Jaa and Yanin "Jeeja" Vismistananda.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.28.249.21 (talk) 05:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sequel 

message: There's no mention of this whatsoever in the article (or in any of the other sources I've read, so I figured I'd ask here before editing the article. The original Thai name of the film is ต้มยำกุ้ง, which literally means "shrimp soup". (After I realized what I was reading, I checked it with several native Thai speakers, who confirmed it.) Knowing that Thai is a tonal language, I wondered if it was a double-entendre or play on words, but I've been told that these words are unique, and only ever refers to the soup. Is there a special significance to shrimp soup that warrants the title, or is there a Thai tradition of naming films in an offhand or flippant way? If so, I think the article would be enriched by adding some information about it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.43.61 (talk) 03:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The offhand/flippant naming seems more to be the case. Compare with Chocolate (2008 film) and Muay Thai Giant aka Somtam (no article yet). --Paul_012 (talk) 16:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The original name