MovieChat Forums > Thunderbirds (2004) Discussion > S T O P !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!

S T O P !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!


MY GOD PEOPLE "ITS A MOVIE"
i am so sick of everyone saying negative things about movies
they are movies and movies are not for everyone... this one happens to be a kids movie, directed towards KIDS....ENOUGH WITH ALL THE BASHING

by the way i didnt think the movie was what i had hoped for,but enjoyed watching it with my kids.
GEE i guess the movie wasnt for me but as long as my kids liked it, i guess its good for THEM,NOT FOR ME AND APPARENTLY NOT FOR YOU
SO STOP THE BASHING its a dissapointment for any fan of a MOVIE to have to read it.









reply

[deleted]

Of course people (particularly fans of the original) are going to bash this pile of sh*t. That's what reconfirms the original for fans as being truly important in the history of TV entertainment - that it was original, good and lovingly put together, unlike this movie which was a crass attempt to help market the merchandise (which went straight into the reduced bin at my local bookshop within a month).

It wasn't all bad, but I still remember the day I went to see Star Wars - now there was a kids movie! Why don't they make 'em like that any more I don't know. ;-)

reply

Hi -

Why I appreciate your viewpoint, please consider the following:

The original Thunderbirds earned a place in TV history. It was, and still is, much beloved - indeed, the entire first 10 minutes of the Wallace and Gromit movie is a direct lift of Thunderbirds, down to a direct replay of the original Thunderbird 2 launching sequence (if you don't believe me, get the movie, and then get a copy of the original epidsode where Thunderbird 2 is launched).

This movie was a crass attempt at making a kids movie - when the original was loved and enjoyed by kids and adults alike!

And I would hestitate to show this movie to kids. Why? In the original, the Thunderbirds spent all of their time rescuing people who were often trapped when Mother Nature or Technology went horrible wrong (yes, there was also the occasional criminal act). The Thunderbirds put their own lives and resourses at risk for no reward - the very essence of heroism and selflessness. There was little physical violence. The Thunderbirds challenged the imagination to a degree - how many of us would dream of someday building a Thunderbird 2?

This movie came across as a meld between Thunderbirds and Loony Tunes - I mean, we have Anthony Edwards as Brain imitating Porky Pig????? The funny sound effects when someone got nailed on the head with a frying pan? The tech that fired our imagination was absent - instead we have these kids running around, using a plot device that was NEVER in the original series (having the entire team take off at once) with a dose of "Use the Force Luke" mysticism thrown in when TinTin would leviate something or another. The heart that made Thunderbirds unique was GONE.

And this is why we hate this movie. When someone puts out something that was popular to a fan base, and expects the fans to shell out money to watch, and then delivers something than wasn't even close to what the fans expect - well, I am sorry, that is just plain WRONG!

reply

"This movie came across as a meld between Thunderbirds and Loony Tunes"

One of the biggest problems with kids' movies today is the idea that kids are stupid and can't handle movies unless they're about kids, or anything more sophisticated than fart jokes. One of the reasons why Gerry Anderson's TV shows did so well was that the majority were about adults that kids could empathise with, because they wanted to grow up to be the Thunderbirds guys, or flying Eagles in 'Space 1999'.

Sometimes such movies are done well, like 'Spy Kids', but usually they're done badly, like 'Thunderbirds'.

reply

You're absolutely right. The great thing about most "kids" shows in the 1950s-'60s was that they were about adults or teenagers whom kids could emulate---heroes we wanted to be like when we grew up. We weren't subjected to little kid know-it-alls who were more empowered than the adults in their lives. Back then, kids acted like kids in those TV shows, not short adults. The only really "self-reliant" kid was in those old Shirley Temple reruns, and even in those, she doesn't WANT to be self-reliant; she spends all of her time trying to create a parental unit to take care of her, as it should be.

This is a major problem with today's popular entertainment: it doesn't give kids anything to learn from, look forward to or strive to be because the only message given is that they know it all NOW. It's insane. That was the main problem with this film (among numerous others). In the series, the adult Tracy brothers risked their lives to save people and were heroes we could look up to. They were the kind of adults we'd hoped to be when we got older. And they could consciously risk their lives because, being adults, they could make such decisions based on their experiences and years of training. You can't put a child into such a position and get the same results.

Still--I agree with the original post and I'm sick of people bashing this film just for the sake of it. This film did have a lot of redeeming qualities, not the least of which was the reinforcement of loyalty, respect and love of family which the Tracys and Belagants illustrate throughout the film. So what it's not exactly like the original series? There are some major departures (some that are pretty silly), but the overall messages of valor, self-sacrifice and bravery in the cause of preserving life---those are all there.

reply

I think it is funny seeing as it is the older people who are attacking it the most. I'm 16 years old and I went with a group of friends to see it cause it was the only thing left to see and we surprizingly enjoyed it.

However we strongly belive the older Thunderbirds is well out dated. Or course the older people would be mad at the changes made but get over it your acting like a group of grade schoolers.

*beep* the older verison this is the 2000 verison of it. Even as teenagers we enjoy a nice movie like this once in a while, for once we weren't being told we are all evil little things out to beat up the first old lady we see and we weren't watching something that made us leave thinking we had to lose weight or go out and have sex. It was a good movie.

Stop being so childish, it's a MOVIE, If you don't like it then dont watch it But before you attack another movie open your eyes and take a really good look at what most movies are telling people these days.

reply

"However we strongly belive the older Thunderbirds is well out dated."

Then why do kids still seem to love the TV show today?

reply

Let me guess there your kids and there under the age of 8? Cause hello open your eyes AM a kid, I asked a GROUP of KIDS and no one over the age of 10/11 said they would sit down and watch it.

I'm not trying to be mean but this informantion is coming stright from a kids mouth, and not just one or two. If you want to know what kids think best way to find out is to ask one so I did.

reply

No, they're not my kids and they're under the age of twelve.

"I'm not trying to be mean but this informantion is coming stright from a kids mouth"

If you're sixteen you're hardly a kid, and certainly not the target audience of the original show. In fact, I'm rather surprised that you liked a movie as childish as this one: the TV show was far more adult in the way it treated the material, even if the stories themselves were often childish.

reply

[Even as teenagers we enjoy a nice movie like this once in a while, for once we weren't being told we are all evil little things out to beat up the first old lady we see and we weren't watching something that made us leave thinking we had to lose weight or go out and have sex. It was a good movie.]

That's a very valid point indeed. Though I'm rather tired of the "super-know-it-all kids who can do everything adults can" routine in films these days, the kids in "Thunderbirds" took care of themselves out of dire necessity while, all along, longing for their parents to be safe and protective of them. They loved and wanted to be with their parents, a fact they both state and demonstrate throughout the film. Those are emotions which are normally absent in films of this genre. I'm for anything which feeds a positive message to its audience, and the kid heroes in this film projected lessons in bravery, valor, teamwork and perseverance. Yeah, that's what the Tracy brothers should have been doing, but it is what it is and people need to get over it and enjoy the best aspects of this movie. There's a lot more "good" in it than people have let on.

However, I disagree with the kid demographic regarding the original series. I've known teenagers (mainly girls) who have come to enjoy the series as of late, but the largest new group of fans is still women over the age of 18. Some of those women caught on to the series after having seen this film, while many more came onboard during the TechTV run of 2002-2003. But of course, little kids love it too, provided that they aren't already too jaded with anything beyond all that Saturday morning anime. Either version has something for everyone.

reply

I think this movie is a terrible ripp off. I grew up watching the thunderbirds with the love of the puppets and the thumping loud music. Was it just me? or threw out the entire film i felt i was waiting for the classic... "thunderbirds are go.." que thunderbirds music....

Dont let your kids see this movie watch the tv show instead.

1/10 and thats me being kind.



reply

One of the biggest problems with kids' movies today is the idea that kids are stupid and can't handle movies unless they're about kids, or anything more sophisticated than fart jokes

Well said. I get tired of hearing rubbish films being excused because they're 'for kids'. Contrary to what Hollywood and some parents think, kids loathe being dumbed down to. That's why we're seeing kids growing weary of films being churned out with plots that assume that since children are young then they must be stupid. Kids (especially boys) also prefer their heroes to be adults, not another kid. Films like 'Spider-Man' are very popular with youngsters because of the interesting plot angle and well-depicted adult hero. The sooner Hollywood realise that, the sooner we'll see better films being produced.



"I always pretend to root for Gryffindors but, secretly, I love my Slytherin boys."~ Karen, W&G

reply

When I was young, I utterly despised child protagonists. Whenever I saw stuff with a child protagonist accomplishing great things like building a machine that could take you to the Moon or something silly like that, I'd stare at the screen blankly. I could never imagine myself doing crap like that at my then current age. I can't even imagine myself doing crap like that now. Probably the most realistic approach at a child protagonist in a movie was the Flight of the Navigator. The kid wasn't a super-genius or anything. He was just some poor, hapless kid abducted by an intelligent flying saucer that used his brain to temporarily store information in.

reply

That Thunderbirds is a film aimed at kids doesn't excuse it from being crap.

------
When the Pawn Hits the Conflicts He Thinks Like a King...

reply

Ouch.

it must be really bad then if it works up enough hateful energies for so many people to actually come here and spam this board.

I liked it. Yes, there were bad bits. however, there were good bits too. Anything on tb5 was good, even if the plot to get the boys up there wasn't.

Sophia Myles and Ron Cook rocked. Honestly, the original Penny/parker combo had nothing on the movie ones, although the fight scene was meant to be amusing rather than fighty, and failed miserably at both.

personally, i like both the movie and tv verse, although there are many things that could have been improved in both. I've watched the tv series since i was a kid, and i always disliked it that John was left out, tintin treated like a secretary, the mole looked like a mutant corkscrew, and that the craft looked so damned unrealistic. There was little element of urgency, it was all hey, lets sit down and talk about what we have to do to rescue all these people.

in the movie, all three are definitely better, but instead, Alan's a whiny brat, TinTin is Luke Skywalkerish to The Hood's Darth Vader. Honestly, if he's psychic in the tv verse and the movie verse, why shouldn't she? they're related after all.

i did like Fermat, although the stutter was overdone. I'm pretty sure that the whine factor would have increased dramatically without him, so i can't exactly have him. TB1,2,3 and 5 looked wicked, while 4 looked like a beetle(albeit a functional one), and wasn't really an improvement or a deprovement.

the yeehaw-ing adds humanity to the scenes, they're people, and they're getting to play around in these really cool rockets. I'd be bloody Yeehaw-ing.


ignore the glaring plotholes, go with the flow, drool over the boys ;)


reply

I cheered throughout your post, wiccasta5! I agreed with just about everything you said, save the one thing about them not stressing the urgency of rescues in the original series. There are episodes such as "Brink Of Disaster," "Edge Of Impact," "30 Minutes After Noon" or "The Cham Cham" wherein they really push the 'step on it' factor. ("Come on, baby--faster! Faster!"----hahahah)! However, I do know what you mean about them sort of sitting about plotting out rescue scenarios ad nauseum in a few episodes, but that's because IR is supposed to be the last resort to all other means of rescue. That's one of the few quibbles I had with the live action film, in that they literally say that "the 'Thunderbirds' are always the first on the scene," when, in fact, it's the other way around and they don't come in until there's no other hope of rescue. But it's a small matter in what's otherwise a really fun film. I don't think some people will ever get beyond the fact that it's not exactly like the series, but when you see this film with an audience full of children, then you realize how magical it really is.

And...yeah, if nothing else, there's the drool factor!!! (Yum)!

reply

Okay so what if the plot of Gerry Anderson and the one who Mr. Franks came up isn't the same ? I mean, it is a good movie. It could be better when they stick with the plot that Gerry Anderson made, but still it's good. Even when Alan is a brat and TinTin have powers. What do you think that authors do ? I use the tv show TinTin in my fics that she haves teh same powers. And want about the Thunderbirds RPG ? There are some sites where they play that Alan isn't a brath and everything is difrent. Besides, while i was watching the movie, i was more drooling over Dominic Colenso and co then watching it.

But back to the movie. Does it matter that the tv show and the movie aren't the same ? If i was a kid that was 5 year old, i never knew about the old thunderbirds show and i would be in wonderworld if i knew that there are heroes out there with those crafts. Kids have wild imagenation so let them have it.

Let them dream further for now. You aldults just have to wait untill Gerry Anderson gets his rights back from Carlton and can re-make Thunderbirds. Yes, you heard me re-make the thunderbirds. Thne the kids will learn who the real Thunderbirds are.

Cya

Chibi Max

~* The howl of a lonely wolf*~

reply

[Okay so what if the plot of Gerry Anderson and the one who Mr. Franks came up isn't the same ? I mean, it is a good movie. It could be better when they stick with the plot that Gerry Anderson made, but still it's good.]

Yes, it IS a good, fun and enjoyable film on its own merits; I very much agree with you there. However, the "plot" becomes of issue when you look at the fact that the rest of the Tracys---the real heroes---never get to do anything they are supposed to do, outside of the oil rig rescue during the first 15 minutes of the movie. THAT'S the problem. Alan is a brat in the series, so yeah, he's depicted as a brat in this film as well. I don't think that anyone has a problem with that, other than the fact that fans of the series didn't appreciate their heroes being de-aged to a point where it became ridiculous to believe that they could actually function as International Rescue. The original script written for the film back in the mid-1990s (the Karey Kirkpatrick script) also had a plot which featured a bratty, spoiled Alan causing problems for poor ol' Jeff, but he was 19 or 20 in that story and IR is basically the same as featured in the series, with adult Tracy brothers making the conscious decision to put their lives on the line. That's not what we get in this film, and if you sit and analyze it too much, what we've got here is a Jeff Tracy who should have been arrested for child endangerment years ago. (The mining rescue alluded to indicates that he took his mid-teen sons into a fiery mining disaster to perform rescue work, which makes absolutely no sense). It's this sort of nonsense with which fans of the original series take issue.

[What do you think that authors do ? I use the tv show TinTin in my fics that she haves teh same powers. And want about the Thunderbirds RPG ? There are some sites where they play that Alan isn't a brath and everything is difrent.]

What fan fiction authors choose to do is hardly relevent, though. I've read a few things out there which are so far removed from "Thunderbirds" that I've wondered why they bothered to even use the characters' names! Vampire Tracy boys? Alien Tracy boys? Werewolf Tracy boys?! And nary a rescue in sight in the vast majority of them! That's not "Thunderbirds"---it's "Dark Shadows" or the "Twilight Zone!"

[But back to the movie. Does it matter that the tv show and the movie aren't the same ? If i was a kid that was 5 year old, i never knew about the old thunderbirds show and i would be in wonderworld if i knew that there are heroes out there with those crafts. Kids have wild imagenation so let them have it.]

Yes, it DOES matter to a lot of fans that key elements of the film are a major departure from the series, and for good reason. It's a common phenomenon that when films are adapted from other sources, some "suit" along the way figures that he/she can tweak it to "make it better" or to appeal to a broader audience, and, inevitably, it raises the ire of those who followed the original work. "Suits" are almost always WRONG and they are too stupid to know it until they get a box office flop on their hands. And, thanks to their stupidity, they ruined what could have been a brilliant and lengthy film franchise.

The real question is: Does the above make "Thunderbirds" a bad film? NO. It's actually quite a lot of fun---IF you can divorce it from all of the things that the fans of the series had dreamed that it could be. The trouble here is that the first 20-25 minutes or so proves what a great "Thunderbirds" film franchise it could have been. The oil rig rescue is FANTASTIC, with realistic-looking Thunderbirds 1 and 2, exciting rescue action and believable portrayals of the Tracy family. The only thing that spoils it for me is knowing that we were robbed of the footage of Virgil piloting Thunderbird 2, which the idiots at Universal could have had the decency to add to the bonus material, since they stupidly opted to edit it out! (Who wouldn't want more of Dominic? What were they thinking)?!!!

I know it's annoying to see the clueless knock this film again and again, believe me. I'm a long-time fan of the series and I wasn't very pleased with most of the film the first time I saw it. However, I was willing to give it a chance to grow on me, and the second time I saw it, it was with an audience filled with small children. The absolute joy with which they accepted these heroes and their great ships was infectious, as was their cheering and excited gasps during the screening. That's when I accepted that this is THEIR "Thunderbirds," just as the original series fascinated me and my friends as kids. So it's OK that they love it and, hopefully, it will inspire them in the same ways that the series has inspired generations of fans before them.

reply

Hammer Time!

--------
-Insert pop culture reference to make me look less of a nerd for using message boards-

reply

I loved it. I'm 20 and I saw some of the original series when I was a kid but I was young and I don't remember much of it so in a way, I started watching it with no expectations on what it should be like compared to the original and I think that's how it is for the kids that it's aimed at. all the kids that I know have seen it and they loved it. Of course the boys wanted more acion and fighting and the girls wanted romance and more of a happily ever after effect to it but that's just kids.

My three year old cousin started cheering when Thunderbirds 1 & 2 flew in at the beginning and they were hooked from there.

Even my 69 yo father loved it now his treating my mother like Parker treats Lady Penelope and talking to me as if we are 2 of the Thunderbirds ourselves. Call it immature if you like but that is the one movie gauranteed to bring out the kid in him.

For all you people who keep slagging off the movies because it's not what you expected then I have two pieces of advice for you. 1) Lower you expectations, you'll find that if you go into a movie with no pre-concieved ideas about what it should be then you will probably like it more & 2) Get a hobby or a day job cause you seem to have too much time on your hands anyways

reply

Loved your post, midnight chris---well said indeed! That's exactly like the experiences I've witnessed. Kids really love this film and rightly so, but so do many adults. That made it lots of fun to see in the theaters---hearing the kids and their parents and grandparents cheering for the heroes and hissing at the bad guys. I sent a DVD copy to my friend's young nephews last Christmas, along with some of the books and toys, and they went crazy over it all, and so did their parents and grandparents. (I was told that they watched the film five times over that weekend)!

I adore the original series and have for just about 40 years now, but this film is adorable and great entertainment in its own right. It's time for people to stop knocking it; either give it a chance or just let it go. It's certainly not what we old timers expected or hoped that it would be, but it's still lots of fun.

reply

This isn't the don't-say-anything-negative-about-any-movie board. If people want to say something negative about this or any movie, well, so what? Does it or should it affect you or your view of the movie? Probably not. Let them say what they want, don't feed them by replying to them. A lot of the naysayers are attention hounds anyway.

Well, if it isn't the leader of the wiener patrol, boning up on his nerd lessons.

reply

[deleted]

Okay, you are beyond WRONG here.

1. Just because it's a kid's movie doesn't mean it's exempt from criticism. If anything, it's more open to criticism because kid's movies are hard to do right, and if you do it wrong, then it's glaringly obvious.

2. It isn't bad just because of the differences from the show. Taking that out of consideration, this is still a damn stupid movie. For example:
* How can a highly advanced spy satellite, which can track hurricanes across the planet, NOT detect an incoming missile launched from right next to his own home?
* Making the smart characters into spectacle jockeys is just stereotyping
* 25% of the dialogue is exposition. That's just awful writing
* Making a 'hover-sled', a highly advanced piece of fictional equipment, out of JUNK is just plain stupid

3. Also, if it's 'just a movie', then let's start to praise a movie you really hate, and we'll see how far you'll go to prove how right you are, m'friend.

reply