Thread for me and the proof reading anon to gaggle fuck. I just got home so about to hop on and check out your corrections. I want to finish this tonight as I dedicated too much time to this already.
has like a 54 on rotten tomatoes i dont think its really worth all the bizarre restoration efforts. just because something had a lot of props and costumes and sets doesnt automatically mean its a good piece of media
>>215064465it's an unalloyed good for it to exist and be presented as well as possible
>>215064465>54 on rotten tomatoesokay, can we stop with this nonsense. first of all, the 54% rating on rotten tomatoes pertains to the 2 hour 10 minute coppola cut. The 5 hour film cannot even be classified as the same film. it is completely different. you have to watch both cuts to understand.
>>215064427Your thread prompted me to watch the trailer on YouTube, and I was blown away. The film appears to be a genuine kino, with a massive production scale and majestic props and costumes.This made me curious: how was a project of this caliber possible in a poorer, less populous country like them in the early 2000s?I know countries like India and Brazil also make big-budget movies despite poverty, but they have gigantic populations. That means a massive domestic market and a much easier time finding a deep pool of talent.
>>215065326>This made me curious: how was a project of this caliber possible in a poorer, less populous country like them in the early 2000s?It had unlimited budget, supported by the Thai royal crown. They brought in outside experts such as people who worked on The Lord of the Rings to help with costumes and set production. They filmed in real palaces on actual locations allowed by the Thai King. The film was shot from 1995-1999 and was in development since 1992. The film essentially had unlimited budget, especially for extras, where they conscripted 20,000 Thai soldiers to play the extras.
Based
here we fucking go again
I need proofing anon to get in this thread and explain why the timings are completely off.
>>215065387Well, thanks Anon, that explains it! But honestly, I've been impressed by their films for a while. After seeing movies like Bad Genius, How to Make Millions Before Grandma Dies, and The Medium, I kept asking myself the same question: how can a developing country with limited resources produce such brilliant kino?
>>215065735I don't know much about modern Thai films, but I know that Thailand is called 'new LA'. Almost a quarter of hollywood productions are filmed and created exclusively in Thailand, the most recently one being Alien: Earth.
>>215065750>>215065735
bump
>>215065587with .srt's, there are lots of players (tvs, projectors, etc.) that sometimes won't render them correctly if there isn't a larger minimum time between displayprobably his converter did that automatically
>>215066150all good im about to go line by line and get it all over with. I think im gonna leave final punctuation out of translated captions though.
bumpo
dear anonthank you so much for your work. I'm really noticing the improvements you made. FANTASTIC!!!
Where did you guys watch or download this
>>215067388Once I am done with the sub in about 20ish minutes I will upload the final file for you to gofile which will take roughly 40min since its 17gb.
>>215067388And if you’re curious I bought the Thai not for export dvd box set and ripped it myself then re wrote and translated the entire subtitle
Bump for subtitle bro
>>215067443How long is it - is this the 5 hour cut?
>>215067475yessir. 3,000 lines of dialog or 454 pages of subtitle.
>>215067413Oh shit I should bookmark this thread
>>215067443The absolute madman!
>>215067451I'm here, but I won't be ready to get back to work on it immediatelyI mentioned previously some consistency issues: in particular, the handling of text shown on screen (year of the xxxx type stuff) needs scrutiny to be made uniform, and the handling of titles (which is always a pain in the ass), because references to rank or referring to a person via their rank differs, style guides disagree about this, etc., and there is also temptation to capitalize in several instances (particularly when referring to a king being discussed who is not present) for the sake of clarity (which I don't necessarily object to, but it's not consistent and should be done knowingly if it is done at all)
>>215067688>(particularly when referring to a king being discussed who is not present)ah, so that is why you undercased some 'the Kings..." I will take a look. Does the king really have to be present to earn the King (its basically replacing his name).
also yeah. I am really wondering if I should just normalize 'phra' as simply phra instead of saying prince or princess. Sri being Queen.
reminder: the movie is entirely fiction
>>215067767HELLO SAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR
Worth noting that Phra Tien becomes Phra Tienraja halfway through after he becomes Second King."Prince Tien the Secone King" essentially.
>>215067802forgot to mention, but Second King title is Uparat.Honorifics are not the same as their actual lordly titles...
>>215067715There's really no way to shorthand it, so I'll just link you this (which also links to other style guides)https://www.stellarcontent.com/blog/content-marketing/formal-titles-in-ap-style/But obviously in some cases, like if you say 'he is a king' or 'I'm still a captain', it would be incorrect to capitalize>>215067737You might consider having an explanatory subtitle for any given rank the first time it appears, ex. "Sri [Queen]...", and then just using Sri thereafter
>>215067802Meant to say hes brother to the King, not second king.
>>215067849Yes. Just to normalize it, any 'THE King' will be capitalized. If he's in the room or not in the room. Speaking generally about kings, 'a king', etc, under-case. Queen will be treated the same.
