WOW. I went to see this with some friends because we were bored and OH, it is so bad. How could ANYONE like it? TERRIBLE TERRIBLE TERRIBLE x100000000000 acting, AWFUL AWFUL AWFUL x10000000000000000000000000000000000 script, EVEN WORSE EVEN WORSE EVEN WORSE everything else, I would recommend this film for boys aged 5-9 and any other sad geeks out there who might render it 'adequate'.
[deleted]
I totally agree! This movie was the gayest thing in the world! I would rather be stabbed in the eye several times than have to watch this movie again. It is a stupid concept for a movie, and all the poeple who acted in this movie really degraded themselves. I dont even think that trekies and star wars losers would both with this movie
shareyeah...It is GARBAGE....."Thunderbirds" like whatever.....it's the pointless movie i've ever seen....Burn the script....
sharewhen i went 2 see this film, i was expectin a film about the Thunderbirds. wot i got, in my opinion, was a spy-kids style rip-off about 3 bratty young kids fightin a baddie
where are the thunderbirds? for almost the entire film they're stuck in thunderbird#5, absolutely bloody useless 2 nebody!
this film screwed up from the very start. it shud have been about the 5 brothers workin 2gether 2 defeat the hood, not 4 of them and their dad trapped in the middle of space, relyin on their littlest sibling 2 save them. its so cliched 2 tons of other kiddie flicks. it even reminds me faintly of films like home alone!
and whats up wiv the villains? how can the hood, an iconic villainous character, provoke any1 in2 fearin him wiv 2 slap-stick minions by his side?
an absolute bomb. universal shud hang their heads in shame 4 destroyin the childhood imagination, fun & beliefs of many, many ppl
Text-messaging is the ruin of the English language...
sharewow, no joke.
"...and the doors will open. Just like on Star Trek."'
Simple plot. I liked the film for what it was. Yes, hundreds of things could have been better. At the end of the day though, people make movies. Good or bad. I appreciate this film because it gives an idea of real life thunderbirds.
Just like superman, spiderman, iron man, fantastic four....blah blah blah. Not every film is going to be great or to everyones taste.
Go and watch films with openminds and without huge expectations for them to deliver. The thunderbird series were never complex back in the 60's always simple.
There are some on this board that have complained about many other movies too. Yes it's your god given right to moan but if you're unable to find a movie that pleases, i suggest you stop watching them.
25225458 Corpral READ, RAMC.
Bond: Ingenious Q, it's a bomb.... but it's also a rucksack.
My kid was 5 when this film came out... I sat through it as the cinema quickly emptied (we were the only two left by the finish) under the mistaken impression that my boy was into it (he's a sucker for the original Gerry Anderson programs)... when the film finished my son said the movie was "rubbish".
Plenty of my friends have kids that were/are into Stingray, Thunderbirds, Joe 90 and Captain Scarlet, they love the Sci Fi action, equipment, explosions and excitement... Jonathan Frakes didn't have the courage to run with a winning formula (maybe because the the original series were 20 years old - er like Star Trek)... so he twisted the concept into an everyday kids-get-into-scrapes flick. The result was one of the worst films, possibly THE worst film I've ever seen.
Perhaps next time Mr Frakes could use his calamitous touch to kill irritating brands, ones that I don't like... erm like Mork and Mindy (where tucking Mork away in space for 99% of the film would be a blessing).
Wonder when they'll do live action Stingray or Captain Scarlet? This film-the acting in the original series was more lifelike.I just hope they gave Alan his just reward by not sending him back to boarding school.
sharewrite out 100 times:
to, for, with, anybody, what, ...ing, should, people.
"trekies and star wars losers"
Don't forget people who post to threads on IMDb about crap films!
do you people grow up a bit or you do you want to whine and bitch about every thing on a movie this movie does not sound, plus its base on a tv series you be a fool if you thought it was going to be "great" there nothing wrong with the movie.
shareI want to whine and bitch about everything thank you very much
share"I would recommend this film for boys aged 5-9 and any other sad geeks out there who might render it 'adequate'. "
um yeah, wasn't that the point?! that's their target audience. god some people i swear. kid movies for kids?! omg i think the world has gone insane.
Yeah, but they advertised it for adults as well.
All things are solved by chocolate.All not solved by chocolate are solved by shoes.
Yes it WAS trashy...
I just couldn't believe how much they screwed the idea of a prequel.
The fans are mostly devastated, no matter how "For the Kids" they say this film is for, because the original fans are the ones who should have been satisfied.
How could they... Shame on them. They should've handled the movie adaptation more carefully.
Dude. thunderbirds is a show from 1965. kids would have no idea what the hell it is.
shareAt least it flopped big-time at the box-office. Looks like it lost $50M.
shareReally bad movie, I agree. REALLY bad. Not just bad but REALLY bad, did I say it was REALLY REALLY REALLY bad?
CINEMA CRAZED:
http://www.cinema-crazed.com/
Not coincidentally, my son loved it and my daughter doesn't mind it either.....
p.s. from someone with 3 kids and has had his fill of boring disney movie, i found it mildly watchable, short of excrutiating. And yes, I'm a trekkie and a Star Wars loser....
The only people interested in the idea of this film are adults who watched in the 60's. But this film gave them noting at all. If you want to see an updated version of Thunderbirds, Team America is the way to go and definitely not for kids.
shareI am one of those adults so, as such, I didn't mind it.
I think where the film makers lost the plot on was that the original series was about "International Rescue" not 'The Thunderbirds'. The drama of the TV series was what they did--rescued people--not who they were. The concept of most of this movie, consisting of kids running through jungles, just didn't cut it. On the other hand this was cleary the first of a series (that'll probably now never get made) so they needed to position the characters. An extra 10 minutes in this film would have done that.
Lady Penelpoe and Parker carried this film for me. The other interesting aspect was Brady Corbet. I saw him in Thirteen where the director there brought out Corbet's acting ability to the max. Pity Frakes couldn't do that here.
i can't understand peoples problems with this movie i watched the old series sometimes and still do sometimes i wasn't a big fan and am still not but i thaught this movie was brilliant
"eyes open boy i can't protect you all the time"- the league of extrodinary gentlemen
Freak Girl:
You have seen the old series...and yet you can't work out why the fans hate this movie!? Are you not aware of the sheer number of stupid and unesscessary deviations from the tv series? I will spell it out for you...
1) Alan and Tin-Tin SHOULD NOT BE TEENAGERS!
2) Brains SHOULD NOT HAVE A SON!
3) Jeff Tracy should not accompany his sons on rescue missions.
4) International Rescue should be called International Rescue, not 'The Thunderbirds'.
5) FAB 1 shouldn't fly.
6) Tin-Tin should not have mystical powers.
7) International Rescue should not be stupid enough to leave Tracy Island unmanned while they Rescue John in Thunderbird 5.
8) The Hood is a loner. He should not have henchman. Furthermore, he should not even be able to pull off a scheme like this. He should not even know about Thunderbird 5's existence, let alone fire a missile at it.
9) The redesigned craft look ugly and/or stupid. Especially FAB 1 and the Firefly.
10) Scott, Virgil, Gordon and John don't get anywhere near enough screen time, while Alan gets far too much.
NOW are you beginning to understand?
i said i watched a bit off it while i was board not all the time not enough to notice all those things the only things i found wierd were points 10,2,3 and 4
well i enjoyed it anyway and i think that there attmpt was good enough for me so..
and i think 7 was just a mistake happened by accident
"eyes open boy i can't protect you all the time"- the league of extrodinary gentlemen
The only reason you enjoyed it is because you are not a devoted fan of the original, and therefore would neither notice nor care about the fact that practically everything the fans loved about the original series had been changed. I was under the impression that a movie called Thunderbirds should have been made to appeal to fans of Thunderbirds. Instead it was more like a slap in the face. The people who made the film were unfamilar with the original, so the resulting movie was blasphemous garbage. Yes, of course you think otherwise, but then the movie should have been targeted at people like me (a devoted fan), not you (not a devoted fan). I'm sorry but I think the opinions of the fans have more validity than people who have seen little of the original tv show and know virtually nothing about it.
I see that you are a Harry Potter fan, judging from the number of times you post on those boards. Are you aware of how terrible the Potter movies would have been if Stephen Spielberg had gotten his mitts on them? He wanted to relocate the stories to America, squash the first three books into one movie, and all sorts of terrible things. Would you have liked that? Probably not, because you are a fan. My feelings towards this movie are pretty much equivalent to what your feelings would be if Spielberg had gotten his way. Unless of course you actually like the idea of having cheerleaders at Quidditch matches?
Oh dear, I think we're all going to disagree. Unfortunately I am a devoted fan of the original series but I didn't mind this film. I saw it for what it was - an interpretation, not a copy. I lowered my expectations when I saw it so I was pleasantly surprised.
Insolent piece of crockery!
I've been a devoted Thunderbirds fan for 40 years, run a Thunderbirds message board, mailing list and website and was dedicated enough to fly all the way from L.A. to London for the 40th anniversary convention this past weekend. AND I LOVE THIS FILM AND HAVE SEEN IT AT LEAST 40 TIMES. So, no, " armstrong_jonathan500," you DON'T speak for all "devoted" fans and your opinion is no more "valid" than anyone else who saw the film!
I'm really sick to death of super-geeks complaining about his film, even more so after attending the convention. Usually, people like this are the type who just goose-step behind Gerry Anderson, no matter how wrong he is. No, the film wasn't perfect by any means. There's far too much emphasis on Alan Tracy. Big deal: the same was true for the series! (I can't stand the little twerp in either of 'em)! Tin-Tin didn't have any sort of powers that we knew about in the series, but it's not that far-fetched that she could be hypersensitive to mental powers if they run in the family. The Tracys didn't get to actually DO anything beyond the original rescue sequence (that was the real crime in all of this!), but they were still heroic in the face of certain disaster. I didn't care for Ben Torgerson as Gordon and I didn't like the way the character was portrayed in the script, but Ben had enough sense to understand that Gordon had just made the team and felt he had to prove himself to his dad and brothers. Therefore, he would be more serious than the happy-go-lucky Gordon of the series, and I had no problem with that. Lex Shrapnel (John), Philip Winchester (Scott) and Dominic Colenso (Virgil) couldn't have been more perfect; they were charming and capable in their respective roles. And Bill Paxton was the PERFECT Jeff, especially because of his previous work as an astronaut in "Apollo 13." That alone made him wonderfully believable as our beloved retired Col. Tracy. And while, yes, they are "IR" and not "Thunderbirds," there are times even in the original series when the Tracys tell people, "The Thunderbirds are on their way," leaving the authors of this film's script with an "out." Everything in the film has some basis in the lore of the original series and that cannot be denied.
And if you honestly believe that anyone is going to make a mega-budget film solely aimed at a 40 years along group of cult TV fan-geeks, you are sadly mistaken. Yes, as a lifelong fan, I wanted to have the film far more closely resemble the makeup of a standard Thunderbirds episode: background/set-up, some Tracy family/friends character development, call to rescue, Tracy boys actually DOING SOMETHING, obligatory explosions, happy ending. Fine: all of that happened in the first 20 minutes! I figure that anything beyond that was gravy. I saw a film with believable Thunderbirds crafts which looked dazzling on the screen, confident actors, great-looking sets and a magnificent score. It's a pity that you didn't.
'So, no, " armstrong_jonathan500," you DON'T speak for all "devoted" fans'
I speak for the majority though. Why else do you think that the film bombed at the box office? Why is it constantly being voted as among the worst remakes of all time?
'I've been a devoted Thunderbirds fan for 40 years, run a Thunderbirds message board, mailing list and website and was dedicated enough to fly all the way from L.A. to London for the 40th anniversary convention this past weekend. AND I LOVE THIS FILM AND HAVE SEEN IT AT LEAST 40 TIMES.'
'I'm really sick to death of super-geeks...'
Oh, the irony...
'Everything in the film has some basis in the lore of the original series and that cannot be denied.'
Really? I must have missed the episode in which Brain's non-existent son 'Fermat' makes a guest appearance. I must also have missed the episode in which FAB 1 takes off into the air for anyone to see. Not the mention the episode in which the Tracy brothers-minus Alan-are reduced to little more than cameo roles while a bunch of teenagers do their work for them.
Yes, the film may have 'some basis', but that basis is extremely loose and very little of what I saw in the film really stayed true to the spirit of the original series. Having some of my favourite childhood heroes reduced to cameos while a bunch of irritating brats save the day is simply unacceptable.
'And if you honestly believe that anyone is going to make a mega-budget film solely aimed at a 40 years along group of cult TV fan-geeks, you are sadly mistaken.'
*Cough* Star Trek *Cough*
'I saw a film with believable Thunderbirds crafts which looked dazzling on the screen, confident actors, great-looking sets and a magnificent score. It's a pity that you didn't.'
What I saw was a thick-headed attempt at re-creating a classic television show, one that was made without the consent or approval of it's original creator, plus a director who didn't even bother to watch the original source material on which the film was based. The film's characters and storyline deviated far too much from the originals. The sheer stupidity of everyone involved in it's production is simply staggering.
I laughed at your 'magnificent score' comment. You do realise that the Thunderbirds theme was composed by Barry Gray, right? Hans Zimmer's score was just an inferior, re-worked version of it. Nothing in this film even touches scores such as 'March of the Oysters', 'The Man From MI5' or 'Zero X'.
And that Busted song is hardly 'magnificant' either.
re: <Having some of my favourite childhood heroes reduced to cameos while a bunch of irritating brats save the day is simply unacceptable.>
We'll agree on that, if nothing else. It WAS unacceptable to have the Tracys do absolutely nothing while spending an enormous amount of time following the three kids as they ran about the island. Worse, even when the Tracys finally return from space, they are reduced to standing around cheering for the brats and putting the ships away. Total waste there.
re: <What I saw was a thick-headed attempt at re-creating a classic television show, one that was made without the consent or approval of it's original creator, plus a director who didn't even bother to watch the original source material on which the film was based.>
Wrong on all counts: Working Title weren't trying to "recreate" the TV series at all; they used it as a basis to create a "fresh" approach to an old TV show. (Tim Bevan pointed this out in several interviews). They didn't NEED Gerry Anderson's "consent OR approval," since he hasn't owned the rights to the series or characters in many years. (Besides, he didn't create those characters in the first place---Sylvia Anderson did)! And Frakes claims that he did watch the series prior to directing the movie, even though he wasn't familiar with it before that. It didn't matter: WT had commissioned the script as they wanted it to play out and were paying him to direct that script, not an original Thunderbirds episode.
re: <The film's characters and storyline deviated far too much from the originals.>
And "Thunderbirds Are Go" and "Thunderbird 6" didn't?!
re: <I laughed at your 'magnificent score' comment. You do realise that the Thunderbirds theme was composed by Barry Gray, right? Hans Zimmer's score was just an inferior, re-worked version of it. Nothing in this film even touches scores such as 'March of the Oysters', 'The Man From MI5' or 'Zero X'.>
Oh please---is there some reason that they can't both be great? (Other than your uneducated bias, that is)? Zimmer couldn't win: If he didn't incorporate versions of Barry Gray's themes, then people would have complained of that. (Which they DID, even prior to knowing what the soundtrack even sounded like)! Because he did give the nod to Gray's original march, then it's "inferior." The score didn't have to mirror Gray's work, but sections of it are definitely a tribute to him. There's also the fact that Zimmer wrote specific themes for most of the characters, a la "Peter And The Wolf," something which makes the music quite distinctive even when hearing it independent from viewing the film. It's a brilliant and thrilling score indeed.
re:<*Cough* Star Trek *Cough*>
Wrong. The Star Trek franchise is successful because it can pull in people from all sources, not just people who followed one of the many versions on TV. "The Rocky Horror Picture Show" is one of the very few films aimed solely at its core audience which became successful, and that was only because it eventually caught on with NON-core viewers at midnight screenings. (It bombed in its intial run). People do not like viewing "in jokes" and tend to stay away from such tales in droves. This is why Working Title opted to go with a "prequel" to Thunderbirds as we long-time viewers know it, in aid of setting up a backstory for the 1960s series. It was totally unnecessary, in my opinion, but I can see why they'd be concerned with presenting what is, essentially, an "in joke" to a mass audience unfamiliar with the series. There are far better ways around it than the way that they took, but I understand why they felt the need to create an introduction to the characters.
'Working Title weren't trying to "recreate" the TV series at all; they used it as a basis to create a "fresh" approach to an old TV show. (Tim Bevan pointed this out in several interviews). They didn't NEED Gerry Anderson's "consent OR approval," since he hasn't owned the rights to the series or characters in many years. (Besides, he didn't create those characters in the first place---Sylvia Anderson did)! And Frakes claims that he did watch the series prior to directing the movie, even though he wasn't familiar with it before that. It didn't matter: WT had commissioned the script as they wanted it to play out and were paying him to direct that script, not an original Thunderbirds episode.'
'Fresh'? If it's so fresh, then why is the film considered to be a prequel to the tv series? 'Fresh' implies something that is new and not directly connected to the tv series. Making it a prequel was a retarded idea anyway. It makes far more sense to just start over and set the thing in a new, seperate universe. Which is exactly what Anderson has done with Captain Scarlet, incidently. The point I was making was that this film attempted to emulate the success and popularity of the tv series. It failed because the film is crap.
Yes, I know that they didn't legally need Anderson's approval, but I think it's somewhat rude to nick someone else's creation and molest it. The bottom line is that this film would have been vastly superior if it was made either with the approval of both Andersons, or by anyone who actually respected the tv series.
'And "Thunderbirds Are Go" and "Thunderbird 6" didn't?!'
I suppose the Cliff Richard/Martian stuff was a bad idea, I'll give you that. But I said 'far too much'. Deviation is acceptable to a limited extent. I might have even just barely tolerated the /inferior score/redesigned craft/too much focus on Alan/ if the characters were more faithful to their original counterparts. Plus, the storylines of both films were actually rehashed tv episodes, so no, they generally didn't deviate too much. Given the choice between horrible abomination and flawed rehash, I'd take the latter.
'Wrong. The Star Trek franchise is successful because it can pull in people from all sources, not just people who followed one of the many versions on TV.'
Star Trek is made for it's fans, period. Winning over casual viewers is just a bonus. Thunderbirds, however, did the exact reverse: It was aimed at new viewers and alienated the fanbase.
re:<I must have missed the episode in which Brain's non-existent son 'Fermat' makes a guest appearance. I must also have missed the episode in which FAB 1 takes off into the air for anyone to see. Not the mention the episode in which the Tracy brothers-minus Alan-are reduced to little more than cameo roles while a bunch of teenagers do their work for them. Yes, the film may have 'some basis', but that basis is extremely loose and very little of what I saw in the film really stayed true to the spirit of the original series. Having some of my favourite childhood heroes reduced to cameos while a bunch of irritating brats save the day is simply unacceptable.>
I didn't have time to address this one yesterday, so here goes: Again, I agree completely when it comes to the unnecessary emphasis on Alan, Tin-Tin and Fermat. Nothing irritates me more than this ridiculous trend in films to pretend that kids are so "empowered" these days that they can do anything that adults can and don't need the protection and direction of their elders. (Note that the film DOES have the kids express that they need or want their parents, yet they are still put into a position of having to care for themselves). Thankfully, I can now fast-forward through the bits and pieces of them that are actually tedious (which is a healthy part of their performances). However, they did not ruin the film for me, other than the fact that they were allowed to do the things that any fan would expect the elder Tracy brothers to do. They do have a few great lines which are worth watching, though.
As for the comparisons, Fermat was based on Brains (big 'DUH' there). Brains went on at least as many rescues as Gordon and far more than John, so it was deemed that there had to be a Brains-like influence to break up the fighting between Tin-Tin and Alan (most of which ended up on the cutting room floor anyway, along with footage we SHOULD have seen, such as the scenes of Virgil flying Thunderbird 2). I say Fermat was a clone---one of Brains' experiments; that's the only explanation. There's no way that Brains was getting sex if the Tracy boys weren't.
FAB 1 flying? Ummm...seems to me it not only "flew" but rocketed off into space in "Thunderbirds Are Go" in that silly "Shooting Star" sequence. Sure, it was Alan's fantasy, but the whole series was a fantasy! So yes, there's a basis for having FAB 1 fly. Besides, the only reason it was written in was to move Penny and Parker into the plot early on, and considering that they were two of the best things about the film, that wasn't a bad move.
I have to laugh that someone would so violently object to something as minimal as this yet can easily suspend disbelief when it comes to a behemoth like Thunderbird 2 taking off when it is completely unsound aerodynamically. Personally, I very much liked the redesigned ship, although I still love the original version. Actually, the only redesign I disliked was Thunderbird 4, and even that was no big deal. It's nice to know that fans are still so loyal to the original series---that's great, but most of the complaints about this film have been completely unreasonable and often based on misinformation and, usually, have merely been knee-jerk reactions clouded by an unfair bias. The difference between the super-geeks and the super-fans is that super-geeks are so bloody precious that they can't stand the thought of anyone attempting ANYTHING except making a carbon copy version of their sainted memories, and that's just unrealistic. No matter what Working Title did with this project, they would have encountered some measure of bashing by the super-geeks; it was a no-win situation.
I couldn't care less if Thunderbird 2 was 'unsound aerodynamically'. I just think that the idea of flying cars is corny, a cliche and taking the science-fiction too far. I also happen to dislike the 'Cheetah' in New Captain Scarlet for the same reason. Giving cars gadgets like machine guns and grappling hooks I can swallow, giving them wings and hydrofoils I can't. I much prefer the 'Rhino' in New Captain Scarlet...It comes with cool weaponary and gadgets but doesn't go over the top into completle implausibilty by flying or driving on water. My complaint about FAB 1's ability to fly is comparitively minor anyway and I would have forgiven it if the film as a whole was better.
Regarding the resdesigned vehicles, my complaints have little to do with being a 'super-geek' (an arbitrary term you have just made up). I just happen to think that the new designs are either A: completely stupid or B: just not as good as the originals.
The Firefly and FAB 1 come under catergory A. The Firefly is just laughable compared to the original and comes with a new design flaw: the driver is COMPLETLEY UNPROTECTED FROM THE FLAMES.
FAB 1...I know that they couldn't use Rolls-Royce, but...Ford? Give me a break. It looks hideous and out of place for an English aristocrat. They could have used another flashy British brand like Jaguar or more obviously Aston Martin (which is owned by Ford) but I guess they were just so desperate to have the 'Thunderbird' pun that they couldn't be bothered to think it through logically. They could alternatively have just ignored the car's brand and made it a generic design, but I guess they were too stupid to consider that either.
http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/universal_pictures/thunderbirds/design_tb5_01.jpg
That is a sketch of a FAB 1 design considered for the film...strange how it looks much nicer than the one they actually used.
Ditto for Thunderbird 1...
http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/universal_pictures/thunderbirds/design_tb1_02.jpg
The one on the right is very similar to the final design. But the one in the middle looks better and more faithful to the original.
'but most of the complaints about this film have been completely unreasonable and often based on misinformation and, usually, have merely been knee-jerk reactions clouded by an unfair bias. The difference between the super-geeks and the super-fans is that super-geeks are so bloody precious that they can't stand the thought of anyone attempting ANYTHING except making a carbon copy version of their sainted memories, and that's just unrealistic.'
And yet you complain about New Captain Scarlet because the original puppets were apparently more realistic...that opinion is just so *beeping* retarded. So an inability to walk, monotonous facial expressions and visible strings are more realistic? hmmm...yes that sounds completely unreasonable to me. I also sense 'unfair bias' from you: isn't it convenient that you just happen to hate a show that was created by a man whom you hate anyway? You also say that the teens 'did not ruin the film' and yet claim that sex changes did ruin NCS. Great, not only are you unreasonable, you are also a hypocrite.
re:<I just think that the idea of flying cars is corny, a cliche and taking the science-fiction too far.>
Not a "Supercar" fan, then, I'll take it...
re:<Giving cars gadgets like machine guns and grappling hooks I can swallow, giving them wings and hydrofoils I can't.>
Well, then, your issue would be with Derek Meddings and crew, since FAB 1 clearly had hydrofoils in the original series and movies. Brains built all sorts of amazingly ridiculous, improbable gadgets into that car, so an airplane engine really isn't that far-fetched. Your argument falls under that concept that I like to "arbitrarily" refer to as "selective suspension of disbelief," which, when considering the science fantasy eliments included in the bulk of the Andersons' series, becomes pretty laughable. And, by the way, "Thunderbirds" IS more "science fantasy" than anything else.
re:<FAB 1...I know that they couldn't use Rolls-Royce, but...Ford? Give me a break.>
Ford or anyone else: who cares? Nothing would have satisfied the whiners other than seeing Penny and Parker rolling about in that big, clunky car, as if motoring hasn't changed in 40 years. Ford was more than happy to associate themselves with the film and pump lots of money into the project whilst the producers heaped product placement bits throughout it for them (which was thoroughly over-the-top, IMHO). It takes a lot of money to make such a film, so I easily got beyond the ad overkill (and it WAS overkill). But I couldn't have cared less who made the car, so long as there was one, and there's really nothing wrong with that Ford design, other than the fact that Gerry didn't like it and made an issue of it. It's sleek, stylish, pink and functional...and the steering wheel is in the middle, where it belongs. Score!
re:<And yet you complain about New Captain Scarlet because the original puppets were apparently more realistic...that opinion is just so *beeping* retarded. So an inability to walk, monotonous facial expressions and visible strings are more realistic? hmmm...yes that sounds completely unreasonable to me. I also sense 'unfair bias' from you: isn't it convenient that you just happen to hate a show that was created by a man whom you hate anyway? You also say that the teens 'did not ruin the film' and yet claim that sex changes did ruin NCS. Great, not only are you unreasonable, you are also a hypocrite.>
Hmmm...inaccurate, reactionary, insulting remarks: the last vestige of one unable to make a valid point. You obviously need to read posts AFTER taking your "chill pill," hun. I never said the original CS series was remotely "realistic," only that the puppets were made to LOOK more realistic than their predecessors in previous series and that the CGI versions don't communicate human realism at this stage in the state of the art. (Maybe you didn't notice the disproportionate size of the heads before the original series, but most viewers do and it's well detailed in many books). I didn't like the original Captain Scarlet series either, as it happens, and, as I said, those characters were cold, expressionless and inhuman as well. And where exactly did it say that the sex changes "ruined" the New Captain Scarlet series? (To be accurate, I noted that there WERE changes in the sex of several characters to make the point that Anderson himself has altered characters in more or equally drastic ways compared to what Working Title did). You might consider learning how to read a simple declarative sentence before wasting time twisting words around or out and out lying in your attempt to rewrite history. (Geez, I can smell the testosterone through the screen in your posts). Maybe if you actually had a valid reason for your bias against this film, you wouldn't feel the need to escalate the volume when you're unable to communicate your point. My bet is that you've never even SEEN this film.
'Not a "Supercar" fan, then, I'll take it...'
Thunderbirds and Captain Scarlet are the only Anderson series that I actually do like very much. The reason being that although they are still 'science fantasy', they do takes themselves more seriously than the other shows. The puppets, sets, and models were improving with each progressing series, and these two series is where they were at their pinnacle. All of the series were far-fetched, but these two slightly less so. I could swallow them more easily, and plus the scripts were better.
'Your argument falls under that concept that I like to "arbitrarily" refer to as "selective suspension of disbelief," which, when considering the science fantasy eliments included in the bulk of the Andersons' series, becomes pretty laughable.'
Forget it. It's a minor complaint and I wouldn't even care if the film as a whole was great. And yes, I do use 'selective suspension of disbelief'. That's because some things are more fantastical than others. Are you implying that you don't use 'selective suspension of disbelief'?. OK then, I guess this film would have been acceptable to you no matter how ridiculous it was. Would things like lightsabres, magic wands and talking animals not have bothered you at all?
'and there's really nothing wrong with that Ford design,'
Apart from the fact that it's ugly compared to other designs they could have used. The only reason that they even used the car is because it just happens to be called 'Thunderbird'. They sacrified aesthetics for an unfunny pun. And I don't care what Gerry thinks. I just happen to agree with him on this one.
'I never said the original CS series was remotely "realistic," only that the puppets were made to LOOK more realistic than their predecessors in previous series.'
This is word-for-word what you said:
'I couldn't believe that those characters could be made to look even more cold and inhuman than the original marionettes, but darn it if Anderson's crew didn't manage it anyway!'
You make absolutely no mention of the previous series, you only say that the new characters are 'more cold and inhuman', thus implying that the puppets were more realistic. Now who's twisting words?
'And where exactly did it say that the sex changes "ruined" the New Captain Scarlet series?'
Ahem...
'They also didn't send male characters to Denmark for obligatory sex changes, as has been done with the Spectrum gang!'
You seem to be implying here that you dislike the sex changes. I could only assume that they ruined it for you because it is the only critisism of the series you have offered that actually makes any sense to me. You have not bothered to consider a vast range of other details that determine the series's overall quality, so you must absolutely loathe the new Lieutenant Green and Captain Ochre. Besides, the new sex-changed characters don't hog all of the screen time do they? So your comparison with the teens doesn't completely fit.
'Maybe if you actually had a valid reason for your bias against this film'
And your reasons for disliking Captain Scarlet are valid!?
'My bet is that you've never even SEEN this film.'
Yes I have, although not 40 times like you. Jesus Christ, you are OBSESSED. I wouldn't see a film that many times even if I loved it.
re:<Apart from the fact that it's ugly compared to other designs they could have used. The only reason that they even used the car is because it just happens to be called 'Thunderbird'.>
Proof positive that you haven't a clue what you're talking about: FAB 1 (mach 2) was NOT a Thunderbird at all and never was. It was an original design made for the film by Ford designers. Besides, Lady Penelope HAD a Thunderbird in her driveway, as well as a Ka. You might have known that if you'd seen the film.
re:<This is word-for-word what you said:
'I couldn't believe that those characters could be made to look even more cold and inhuman than the original marionettes, but darn it if Anderson's crew didn't manage it anyway!'
You make absolutely no mention of the previous series, you only say that the new characters are 'more cold and inhuman', thus implying that the puppets were more realistic.>
What did you think the words "original marionettes" referred to when I'm comparing the two Captain Scarlet series---Fireball XL-5?! (Man, a first grader has better reading comprehension skills. Seek help).
re:<You seem to be implying here that you dislike the sex changes. I could only assume that they ruined it for you because it is the only critisism of the series you have offered that actually makes any sense to me.>
You know what happens when you "assume," right...? And there's no "implication"--it's a perfectly simple sentence comparing changes made by Working Title versus changes made by Anderson for the "New Captain Scarlet" series. Again, it might help you if you read words for what they actually say and stopped trying to twist them around your biases into something not stated. Again, where did I say it "ruined" anything? I notice that you couldn't answer that while you continue to misstate the facts.
re:<Yes I have, although not 40 times like you. Jesus Christ, you are OBSESSED. I wouldn't see a film that many times even if I loved it.>
Well, then, I have a new reason to thank the gods that I'm not you. (Like they put all of this stuff on DVD so we'll watch 'em ONCE)...?
I've seen loads of films at least as many times as this one. I study film (professionally and as a hobby) and enjoy watching various elements of how different ones were made. Rather than an obsession, it's an education. And I'd rather be obsessed with the enjoyment of a harmless film than to be a narrow-minded, vindictive prat with nothing better to do than whine FOR A YEAR that he hated a movie based on a 40 year old kids TV series. Now THAT is being obsessed...in that sort of "Fatal Attraction" sort of way! (Mind your rabbits, kiddies)!
'Proof positive that you haven't a clue what you're talking about: FAB 1 (mach 2) was NOT a Thunderbird at all and never was. It was an original design made for the film by Ford designers. Besides, Lady Penelope HAD a Thunderbird in her driveway, as well as a Ka. You might have known that if you'd seen the film.'
Then explain this article:
http://movies.about.com/cs/thunderbirds/a/thundcar120103.htm
It's clearly based upon a Ford Thunderbird. The 'original design' isn't completely original, the real-life Thunderbird was used as a template. And the only reason they used that specific car as a template is........?
'What did you think the words "original marionettes" referred to when I'm comparing the two Captain Scarlet series---Fireball XL-5?! (Man, a first grader has better reading comprehension skills. Seek help).'
ARGHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!! THE IDIOCY! I WILL SPELL IT OUT FOR YOU, YOU STUPID TWIT:
You said:
'I actually had to sit through several episodes of the "New Captain Scarlet" over the weekend. The verdict: hated it. I couldn't believe that those characters could be made to look even more cold and inhuman than the original marionettes, but darn it if Anderson's crew didn't manage it anyway! They need to steer clear of this sort of material until the state of CGI art can actually make humans look and move like humans instead of big, clunky automatons. Yuck.'
This contains ABSOLUTELY NO REFERENCE WHATSOEVER to the pre-CS series.
But then you said:
'I never said the original CS series was remotely "realistic," only that the puppets were made to LOOK more realistic than their predecessors in previous series.'
Which contradicts your earlier statement, because there was ABSOLUTELY NO REFERENCE to 'their predecessors'. How can I 'read words for what they actually say' when the words aren't there?
'where did I say it "ruined" anything?'
Where did you say that it didn't ruin anything? You still haven't offered any other logical critisism of the series, and your original post definately paints the very idea of sex changes in a negative context. You have also ignored my point that your comparison doesn't fit anyway because Green and Ochre don't reduce the original main characters to cameos like Alan, Tin-Tin and Fermat do.
'And I'd rather be obsessed with the enjoyment of a harmless film than to be a narrow-minded, vindictive prat with nothing better to do than whine FOR A YEAR that he hated a movie based on a 40 year old kids TV series.'
Wheras you have nothing better to do than to post hostile replies to that very same 'narrow-minded, vindictive prat'. If I'm such an idiot than why are you wasting time on me? WHAT IN GOD'S NAME ARE YOU STILL DOING HERE?
'Now THAT is being obsessed...'
Nope. If I were obsessed, I would form my own anti-Thunderbirds website, write my own version of the script and post it online to impress people, make the effort to meet the cast in person only to tell them I hate them, put a poster of Jonathan Frakes on my bedroom wall and throw darts at it, send letter bombs...
Speaking of websites, I have browsed your website and had a good laugh at it. Given your 'I know everything about Thunderbirds' attitude, it's extremely ironic that the website is plauged with mistakes and contradicts not only itself but also stuff you have posted on this website! So I guess I can't take anything you say seriously anymore.
re:<It's clearly based upon a Ford Thunderbird.>
Then it's NOT a Thunderbird. If it WERE a Thunderbird (as you said it was), then they wouldn't have bothered to put an actual Thunderbird in the driveway of her mansion for all to see. Again, an actual knowledge of the film is helpful before you make such baseless remarks.
re:<...If I were obsessed, I would form my own anti-Thunderbirds website, write my own version of the script and post it online to impress people, make the effort to meet the cast in person only to tell them I hate them, put a poster of Jonathan Frakes on my bedroom wall and throw darts at it, send letter bombs... >
Wow---not only mega-obsessive but a stalker-in-training as well. Scary. Oh, and you STILL can't read worth crap and you've done nothing but prove exactly what I'd said.
re:<WHAT IN GOD'S NAME ARE YOU STILL DOING HERE? >
Last I've checked, it's a "Thunderbirds" movie board and I'm posting on-topic. "I'm not a mile high and I'm not leaving." (Lewis Carroll)
However, you are correct about one thing and one thing only: There's no point in addressing anything else with an idiot (your word) such as you. You're too much of a sad act on which to waste any more time, so you're now on "ignore mode." I'd rather spend that time watching the movie...again!
Ha ha, he puts me on ignore...proof that he is unable to address my points and would prefer to wallow in his arrogance, ignorance and hypocrisy. He's not going on my ignore list though, because I find his bone-headed rants very entertaining.
How do you know it's a he and not a she?
sharere:<How do you know it's a he and not a she?>
He doesn't and his ego can't handle the obvious. He's just a whining nutter, so the thought would never occur to him. ('Course, there's no actual "thinking" going on between his ears anyway)...
'He doesn't and his ego can't handle the obvious. He's just a whining nutter, so the thought would never occur to him. ('Course, there's no actual "thinking" going on between his ears anyway)...'
Doesn't seem to be much 'thinking' from johntracytb5 either. 'He' (or should I say 'it'?) hasn't noticed that 'he' has contradicted 'himself' yet again. Apparently it's stupid of me to assume that 'he' is male from the 'johntracy' username (I can't think of a good reason why a female poster would decide to mislead everyone by posting under the guise of a male character), but it is perfectly fine for 'him' to assume that I am male from the 'armstrong_jonathan500'. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall an instance where I have actually confirmed my gender on this message board. So johntracytb5 must be merely assuming that I am male from my username. But how can 'he' know for certain that my name is 'Jonathan Armstrong' without me explicitly telling 'him'? Answer: 'he' doesn't and is just so naive that 'he' thinks that 'he' can assume so without me noticing the hypocrisy.
I find the remark about egoism absolutely hysterical. It's 'him' who such an inflated ego that 'he' puts me on 'ignore' without bothering to consider a lot of the points in my posts: a cowardly act that serves no purpose other than to convince oneself that they are so inrefutably right that the other poster's views aren't even worth considering. If johntracytb5 wasn't so arrogant, maybe 'he' would take my comments about 'his' website seriously and realise that I am correct: 'his' website has errors that are so obvious that I noticed several of them after browsing the website for just 5 minutes (quite remarkable considering that I apparently lack 'reading comprehension skills'...). I'll even explain these errors in detail if people demand proof. 'He' makes a lot of mistakes that I and probably most other knowledgeable enough fans would never have done. So much for 'his' expertise...
have to laugh that someone would so violently object to something as minimal as this yet can easily suspend disbelief when it comes to a behemoth like Thunderbird 2 taking off when it is completely unsound aerodynamically.
[deleted]
You have seen the old series...and yet you can't work out why the fans hate this movie!? Are you not aware of the sheer number of stupid and unesscessary deviations from the tv series? I will spell it out for you...
1) Alan and Tin-Tin SHOULD NOT BE TEENAGERS!
2) Brains SHOULD NOT HAVE A SON!
3) Jeff Tracy should not accompany his sons on rescue missions.
4) International Rescue should be called International Rescue, not 'The Thunderbirds'.
5) FAB 1 shouldn't fly.
6) Tin-Tin should not have mystical powers.
7) International Rescue should not be stupid enough to leave Tracy Island unmanned while they Rescue John in Thunderbird 5.
8) The Hood is a loner. He should not have henchman. Furthermore, he should not even be able to pull off a scheme like this. He should not even know about Thunderbird 5's existence, let alone fire a missile at it.
9) The redesigned craft look ugly and/or stupid. Especially FAB 1 and the Firefly.
10) Scott, Virgil, Gordon and John don't get anywhere near enough screen time, while Alan gets far too much.
NOW are you beginning to understand?
You have seen the old series...and yet you can't work out why the fans hate this movie!? Are you not aware of the sheer number of stupid and unesscessary deviations from the tv series? I will spell it out for you...
1) Alan and Tin-Tin SHOULD NOT BE TEENAGERS!
2) Brains SHOULD NOT HAVE A SON!
3) Jeff Tracy should not accompany his sons on rescue missions.
4) International Rescue should be called International Rescue, not 'The Thunderbirds'.
5) FAB 1 shouldn't fly.
6) Tin-Tin should not have mystical powers.
7) International Rescue should not be stupid enough to leave Tracy Island unmanned while they Rescue John in Thunderbird 5.
8) The Hood is a loner. He should not have henchman. Furthermore, he should not even be able to pull off a scheme like this. He should not even know about Thunderbird 5's existence, let alone fire a missile at it.
9) The redesigned craft look ugly and/or stupid. Especially FAB 1 and the Firefly.
10) Scott, Virgil, Gordon and John don't get anywhere near enough screen time, while Alan gets far too much.
NOW are you beginning to understand?
I watched this show when I was 6 years old. maybe 5.
When I heard that the thunderbirds made in hollywood are coming , my imidiate reaction was "Oh man , they are gonna totally ruin this great original show."
Then, I was right as I thought it would be.
I think big mistake in this film is that Bill Paxton was chosen as Jeff Tracy. Could'nt they find another actor ?like Harrison Ford? and none of his sons looked like original puppet figures.They all looked like punk kids from streets.not to mention, acting is terrible, puppets acted better with dignity and authority.
anyway this is my reaction. for kids ,it might great movie to watch .
[deleted]
[deleted]
Interesting comment, moviefanblue---but I'm curious: what was so "bad" about the dialog?
Granted, there was some pretty dumb use of terminology from the series, but only of notice if you were a die-hard "Thunderbirds" fan before seeing the film. For example, John would never radio in making reference to "Tracy Island;" that's just plain stupid, since an intercepted message would have the potential to reveal their identity. He'd say, "International Rescue Space Station to base" or, more rarely, "Thunderbird 5 to base." (He was in a rushed panic, so the latter would make the most sense). Thunderbird 2 doesn't have a "bridge" (a term probably borrowed from Frakes' other career); it's always been referred to as a "cockpit," since it's basically a huge, lumbering airplane. We all know it's a soft "y" in "Kyrano's" name, not "KY-rano," and while the surname "Belagant" may be more common to Malaysia, it still made no sense to change it. (We know from "Trapped In The Sky" that his daughter's name is "Tin-Tin Kyrano"). I found the character Transom to be generally annoying all around (as was Brains), but their dialog fit such a set of stereotypes (difficult to judge, though, since she was a new character and Brains wasn't "our" Brains from the series). But...that's about it for me as far as dialog complaints, at least that I recall.
On the whole, the dialog was actually pretty good, though decidedly relegated throughout much of the script to a child's level, as befitting the age range for which they were reaching. I was pleased that they caught little bits of Thunderbirds lore which longtime fans would know, like the fact that Alan actually did shoot off a rocket at his school and blow out a great many windows (though he was in college at the time) and, also, that he's a racing enthusiast, or that Jeff had been a hotshot pilot back when Scott was a baby, or even that Lucille Tracy died in an avalanche. (That bit only became accepted canon in the 1990s, but at least they knew that). Virgil and Gordon teased Alan rather unmercifully, but they did that in the series as well (see "End Of The Road," for example), and Alan and Tin-Tin were at times miffed with each other (see both the aforementioned episode and "Ricochet"). Bill Paxton was wonderful about adding in authentic jargon straight from the NASA handbook he'd put together for "Apollo 13," so his dialog and hand signals really fit right in with Col. Tracy's character. Penny and Parker's dialog was actually rewritten closer to filming to make them sound more quintessentially English (of their respective classes). I just love the "Parker, best have a bit of a lie-down" line; it was perfect, as was Penny obsessing over the stupid hammock at the wackiest time. They were played for comedic effect and it worked. And The Hood's analogies to Tracy Island as "(Mount) Olympus" and the Thunderbirds ships as being the "chariots of the gods," as well as his cynical scowling which alluded to the Tracys as having merely "dallied with the mortals" who existed beneath them---that was inspired and aiming far beyond the heads of the eight year olds they claimed to be trying to attract.
All of this spoke volumes to the careful viewer about the nature of each of these characters. (They didn't give a fig about the other Tracy brothers, so we really don't learn much about them from their dialog, save John's shift in the relationship with his father in this story, as compared to within the series).
Over all, the film pretty much works on its own merits, I've found, but I'd be interested to know what about the dialog didn't work for you.
Guys! Girls! We all either thought that the movie was good or rubbish, we all have our own ideas about "how it should have been". Well too late. It's been released for over a year. But, never mind. There's a hazy bright light on the distant horizon. After the obvious sucess of New Captain Scarlet, there will surely be a New Thunderbirds. And it will rock the hardest (most likely coming 9.75 to the 10 of the original). Imagine...stuff that was impossible in the original (physically, or budget wise). Like PROPER fight sequences between IR and the hood, some new rescue vehicles (as long as they keep the old ones too), the same launch sequences in CGI, keep the ships the same for goodness sake, perhaps changing one small aspect of each (not like adding huge glass windows to the front of subs, or "Fixed pods" in TB2, stick with original select-one-of-6 system. For example, look at the fight sequences in the original Captain Scarlet (maybe 2 awkward punches at the most) and compare it to New CS (massive karate moves, fluid motion, interaction with enviroment etc). AND FINALLY Gerry Anderson himself will have complete control of the new series (if there is to be one) which i thought was one of the major drawbacks of the "movie" (not even mentioning him in the credits).
Anyways, keep, fingers crossed that it'll happen, New CS has about 5 eps left before ending, so it may be his next project.
FAB (Fully Acknowledged and Briefed)
re:<AND FINALLY Gerry Anderson himself will have complete control of the new series (if there is to be one) which i thought was one of the major drawbacks of the "movie" (not even mentioning him in the credits).>
Judging from what he said at the recent Fanderson convention, this is becoming more unlikely as the days pass. If he honestly thinks that writing poison-penned letters to the executives at Granada/ITV is going to win him any favors there, he's sadly mistaken. It was a seriously childish thing to do, and encouraging fans to do the same was even worse. I don't know why he hasn't figured out that his ill-mannered behavior just doesn't cut it in the business world.
Granada/ITV doesn't have to give him the rights to use characters which he sold off of his own free will many years ago. These characters are now their property (after having changed hands several times over the years) to do with as they see fit. Remember, he sold off his rights to the ownership of these characters because he wanted the money to make live-action productions. He's said many times that he had long been embarrassed about having produced "puppet shows" and wanted to move on to live-action work, which, outside of "Space: 1999" and "UFO" have only been marginally successful (or less) at best. Now that our lust for nostalgia over these beloved, cherished memories of ours has made these characters a lucrative property, he's once again interested in them. Fine---but he's got no more right to demand the use of them than anyone else has. It's Sylvia Anderson who actually invented the characters seen in "Captain Scarlet" and "Thunderbirds," and you sure don't see him giving her credit for that in the "New Captain Scarlet" series, do you? So who is he to complain about Granada/ITV not giving him what he considers to be his proper due?
I would LOVE to see a new "Thunderbirds" series more than anything else on Earth, but I want it done well and I want the producers to be true to what I loved about the original series---not picking and choosing what characters or ships to eliminate based on a 40 year old grudge. Having read and heard the sorts of changes that Anderson wants to make, I truly doubt I'd be pleased with whatever he'd produce given "total control," and he won't be happy unless that's what he gets. (Which is exactly why he slammed the live-action film a year before it ever even hit the cinema). Once he sold his rights, he gave up that privilege, and the way he's going at this, it's doubtful that anyone at Granada/ITV will agree to his terms. Stranger things have happened...(like they might actually want to try to make some money on their licensing for a change). We'll see....
'New CS has about 5 eps left before ending, so it may be his next project.'
No, his next project is 'Lightspeed', another CGI series. Details are sketchy for now, although from what I have heard it seems to have similarities to Fireball XL5 and Star Trek. The good thing is that this series is new instead of being a remake, so it can't get ruined by being unfaithful to the original series...because there is no original series!
Very True, a new project may very well be the way to go, no more messing with the TBirds formula. If they someday get it right, well and good, until then, leave it be.
share[deleted]
re:<well to everybody of u who disliked it I want to post a big *beep* U and thats just because its entertainment for children and pre-teens so it should not be taken as a SERIOUS!!! movie. I liked the series when I was a kid and it was just like the movie, just nice entertainment to relax not to believe its real or something.>
While I understand and in some ways share your sentiment (the more articulate bits of it, at least), in fairness you have to, in turn, understand what it feels like to wait for so many years in anticipation of a faithful version of your favorite show up there on the big screen and, instead, get a film that's vastly different to what you'd expected. Believe me, if Working Title had used the Kerry Kirkpatrick script commissioned in 1997, ALL of us would have been happy---both new fans and die-hards---because it was written by someone who understood and respected the source material and had a feel for how integral the Tracys and their friends are to this tale. Instead, Working Title trashed that script in favor of one similar to what ended up on the screen (different villain at the time), and then moved on to the augmented version which was eventually used. No one who knew anything about "Thunderbirds" ever expected to see the Tracys left out of all of the action (even once they're rescued from space!) while some unrecognizable kids hogged the story. For my part, I could have forgiven everything else if only the Tracys had been allowed to actually DO something once they arrived in London in Thunderbird 3, but, instead, the real heroes had to load the ships off screen while Tin-Tin saves Jeff, Penny and Alan with an ability she never had in the series. And it's even worse to find out that footage of the Tracy boys depicting them as doing what we'd expect them to do was filmed but left on the cutting room floor. That's just wrong.
Even the die-hards loved the oil rig sequence in this film. Why? Because it was the one part of the movie which was most like an episode of "Thunderbirds." That's what the fans wanted (and a lot more than just five minutes of it), but WT and Universal had no faith in that as a draw, hence the eventual change to a kiddie format with only hints at what this movie could and should have been. When studios don't show any respect for the fans or the source material, there's no reason for those fans to support the project, and they didn't...in droves. Worse, Universal made no bones about not courting original fans and their own marketing department said that the film wasn't worthy of advertising to anyone over the age of eight and cut the advertising budget to next to nothing.
Having said that...heck yeah, it's STILL a charming, winsome and wonderful film, full of vibrant colors, a thrilling score, entertaining action and adventure, hissable bad guys, heroes to cherish and, most importantly, CUTE TRACY BOYS! I showed the film to my friend's 12 year old daughter over the weekend and she just adored it, especially the Tracy brothers and Lady Penelope. She's now hooked. There is no denying that the majority of kids who actually see this film just love it and, like the fans of the original series, they really admire those gallant men of IR. This is THEIR "Thunderbirds," and that's just fine.
OK, I caught this film the other day and I have to agree with you. Although there were parts I enjoyed (particularly the oil rig bit at the beginning) I did find it just a little too kid-heavy. The script was OK, not great but OK, and I thought that the actors in it did a damm good job considering the material they had to work with (especially Lex, mmmmmmmmm.......)International Rescue are supposed to do just that - go out and rescue people. Not be used as a plot device and shoved up on a space station for 40 minutes.
I grew up watching the re-runs of the 60s show and I am a fan. But I dont like my films being tampered with too much. A little more consideration for existing fans before you tamper with the format that much please Studio Executive types! Its a shame the chances of a sequel are so small :( They could have done a much better job, but maybe in a few years they will try again. Who knows? It could be like the Batman franchise all over again!
Ex-CUSE me! You liked the Oil Rig Sequence!
How many damned times in the original Series did the International Rescue Pilots go ballistic when someone pointed so much as a disposable point and shoot at them and their craft, yet here is a full bloody film crew, and nothing!
Apart from that, I liked the film it was updating the format for a generation backed by films like "The Matrix" and "Crouching Tiger", so let's just all knock it off!
re:<<How many damned times in the original Series did the International Rescue Pilots go ballistic when someone pointed so much as a disposable point and shoot at them and their craft, yet here is a full bloody film crew, and nothing!>>
Yeah, but this film totally dismissed the idea of secrecy about the appearance of the Thunderbirds crafts or the agents' names. While it makes no sense for an organization which wants to keep their location a secret to happily stitch their names onto their uniforms (even Lady P!!!!), it doesn't matter in this version that everyone seems to know what the Thunderbird vehicles looks like since The Hood isn't after trading on images of them to make money this time out. Result: no automatic camera detector needed. (It never made sense that only TB1 had one anyway).
Apparently, in this alternative Thunderbirds universe, everyone down to that goofy IWN reporter and the kid with the pan on his head knows exactly what the IR ships look like, even at a distance. Heck, in the script, the kid even knew that their acknowledging phrase was "F.A.B.!" (That part was cut out of the final print). This version of IR really had no secrets by the end of the film, except for never telling us how Virgil managed to keep that perfectly vertical anime hair no matter what ordeals he went through. (Too cute)!
The problem with the film is that it wasn't 'The Thunderbirds' but 'The Adventures of Little Alan and His Wee Friends'. It was barely distinguishable from any of the other kiddie-flick films out there involving some brat saving the world when they are barely of age to cross the road by themselves. If the film had taken the 'Spiderman' route by aiming at an audience of a wide age group rather than the under tens then it would have made for a much better film.
"I always pretend to root for Gryffindors but, secretly, I love my Slytherin boys."~ Karen, W&G
And what bugs me about the "Little Alan" plot is that (1) Alan was so over-represented in the original series and films that everyone ended up hating him and, (2) he doesn't actually DO much of anything to become a hero! Jeff keeps congratulating him during the film (in the Satellite Hill scene and the Saving TB5 scene) and The Hood decides it was "Clever Alan" who had swiped the guidance processor from TB2, but Alan hadn't actually done anything to help the situation, other than dropping himself and the other kids down the chute under TB1 (which could have gotten them all killed, with or without the flames). It's Fermat who figured out how to hack the system to restore control to the satellite, Fermat who swiped the guidance processor and Tin-Tin who figured out the way through the jungle and saved Alan's life...twice. The writers were desperate to make this a "rite of passage" film, yet Alan's leap is a pretty minor one. It would have been so much better to let the elder Tracy boys do what they do best and to have kept the Alan bits to a minimum, but Universal figured that they knew better. WRONG!
shareFor what my tuppence worth is worth, this was an opportunity wasted. Could have been the resurrection and modernisation of a cult series which was totally blown (Star Trek pulled it off admirably). I'm sure it wasn't intended this way - nobody goes out to lose $50m (except maybe Richard Pryor), but, in deference to those involved, I'm presuming it was a case of too many cooks spoiling the broth.
I liked the craft (with the exception of TB4), I liked Tracy Island - I can even live with FAB1 not being a Rolls Royce. Parker and Penny were OK. Everything else, however, left me slack-jawed like a bad motorway crash.
At the end of the day though, no matter how much we fire opinions into the ether, the box-office receipts speak for themselves.
re: <At the end of the day though, no matter how much we fire opinions into the ether, the box-office receipts speak for themselves.>
Not to play devil's advocate...well, ok, yeah, I will:
All that the box office receipts prove is that no one knew that the movie was out there, not that there was a massive boycott of the film for content's sake or anything of the sort. I've talked to a good number of folks who were fans of the original series and were very much looking forward to seeing the film when it hit the theaters, but I soon stopped counting the number of folks who were still asking me several months after the fact, "When is the Thunderbirds film opening?!" Here in the US, unless you had little kids in the house who watched the Fox Box on the Saturday before the film opened, or you happened to see the ads on Fox in the pre-prime time hours or the few ads run on BBC America, it was quite likely that you never saw any advertising for this film at all. There were none of the expected bus ads, no billboards or bench ads and you had to be seeing just the right film to view the trailer, which wasn't easy to manage. Worse still, there were no toys in the shops to help push the promotion of the film until more than a month after the film opened, and even then the few items available were almost impossible to find because the biggest toy retailers in America never ordered any items at all. Even at Universal Studios, the only advertising was in front of the theater, three stories above the ground! Not even their studio store carried any Thunderbirds merchandise...absolutely nothing.
I know that this was not totally the case in Britain and the prerelease press on the film was massive. Even with all of that media buzz, it still couldn't make up for a meager advertising budget. However, admittedly, the situation in Britain, in particular, was down to a further matter of expectation and press relations. Part of promoting a successful film does involve courting the press, which was done in the UK long before the cameras began to role. However, once the film entered post-production, Working Title clammed up tight, with them refusing interviews in some cases and doing quite a bit to stop the outside world from finding out anything more than very superficial details about their project. That just smacks of a lack of confidence in the product and the press latched on to that quickly and ran with it. Before long, the bad press began and the buzz turned ugly. People in the UK, in particular, expected to be dazzled by a Thunderbirds film---and rightly so, given the budget alone---but the more negative the prerelease buzz became, the more fans began to lower their expectations and pull back. However, the film did quite well in Northern Ireland and remained in theaters for 4-6 weeks after it had been pulled everywhere else. What went right there and in Japan that didn't work elsewhere...?
The sad truth is that Universal's promotions department buried this film the moment that it was screened for them in the Spring of 2004. That's a documented fact. They were the ones who decided that the film would not be promoted beyond a very minimal amount, and even that promotion was only to be spent on courting small children during cheap advertising hours. There were a number of test screenings, and, by all accounts, reaction was favorable across the age spectrum, but test screenings don't really cost much of anything to do and can only hope to generate good "word of mouth" at best. Even more bizarre, they refused any attempts to help them promote it, including the fact that they shunned the San Diego Comicon---THE place that the film community looks to for promoting genre films of this type. Quality promotional campaigns are costly and very little of this was done. When I was taking film classes back in the 1980s, the general rule of thought was that a film had to spend an amount at least equal to its budget on promotion to be successful. By Universal's reports, they barely spent $4-5m on promotion for a $57m film. They later blamed this on the confusion caused last summer by the sale of the studio to NBC, but that's pretty lame when they certainly put money and effort behind the promotion of "Shrek II" and "The Bourne Identity" during the same half-year time period.
The honchos at Universal/WT just had no clue what to do with "Thunderbirds"---they never did. Seven years of press stories about their idiotic ideas about altering the source material showed that this was to be the case long before the final script was even chosen. Their pathetic handling of the film from the choice of script and director down to the promotion of the end product is what was proven by the poor box office receipts. As far as I'm concerned, that is not a reflection on the film itself but on the jugheads in charge. And what's really sad is that general audiences, especially children, love this film and it could have been a far bigger draw if only more of them had known that it existed.
Point taken, but I was speaking from an English perspective and as someone who grew up with the original in the 60s.
There was sufficient press to alert everyone to the film, but still they stayed away. I even got tickets for free just for taking a Ford for a test drive - seems they couldn't give them away.
As I said, an opportunity wasted.
Right, which is why I addressed the UK faction separately, since that market (as well as the Japanese market) had ample press and hype long before the release of the film. Box office receipts there couldn't be blamed on the public not knowing about the film because that wasn't the case.
However, the English fans of the 1960s stayed away in droves from both "Thunderbirds Are Go" and "Thunderbird 6" as well. I can understand "TAG" bombing---it's a major bore and has little IR content (rather like the live-action film on that second count). "T6" has a more interesting (albeit strange) plot and has far more of the Tracys in it than "TAG," but it still didn't do well at the box office. I'd thought that folks in the UK would flock to see the live-action film out of curiousity, if only to see those realistic renderings of the ships---but even that didn't get people into the theaters. What is it about this franchise that it is so beloved as a TV series yet those same fans will not support a theatrical version?
"What is it about this franchise that it is so beloved as a TV series yet those same fans will not support a theatrical version?"
Word of mouth?
I would settle for "word of mouth" if the first day takings in the UK had been phenomemal and then suddenly dropped off---but few people turned out even on the first day. The same thing happened with "Thunderbirds Are Go." There was a big, splashy premiere in both cases and lots of hype, but neither had big box office takings on the first day of release. The situation with "TAG" was far different, though, because the economic realities of the time were that most people had very little money to spend on going to the theater and certainly not for something which they were already enjoying on television. And, frankly, in both cases, what appeared in the theaters was not comparable to what viewers loved about the series.
I read a number of reviews which appeared in the UK papers on the opening day for "Thunderbirds." Some were outright unfavorable on all counts, while most were moderate or marginal---and a few were favorable, which was the same in the States, actually. Interesting that those reviews carried more weight than all of the hype which came before it, because I'd have figured that curiousity alone would still make for big box office on at least the first day.
"And, frankly, in both cases, what appeared in the theaters was not comparable to what viewers loved about the series."
And I suspect that most people who were fans of the series already knew that before the day it was released. Even the pictures of FAB 1 which appeared in the media beforehand would have turned off many fans, I'm sure: let alone the trailer with the gay boy band look.
Heck, one look at the trailer was enough to convince me that it was going to suck.
re: <Even the pictures of FAB 1 which appeared in the media beforehand would have turned off many fans, I'm sure: let alone the trailer with the gay boy band look. >
Well, Gerry Anderson whinging and moaning about not getting to trash that FAB 1 design didn't help, of course. It was guaranteed that some people would jump in line after reading those tantrums of his and choose to avoid the film at any cost.
And what's interesting is that it's exactly that "boy band" look that has created thousands upon thousands of new female Thunderbirds fans. (Not sure what was "gay" about the hair, btw, since massive amounts of hair gel and the "bed hair" look seem to be everywhere you look these days). The female fans and their concerns have always been discounted in this fandom, so it's been refreshing to see all of these women come into the fold, proud to be Thunderbirds fans. In large part, that's been exactly because of Lex, Dom, Ben, Brady and Philip, and, to their credit, they made excellent Tracy boys and did a great job with what little they were given to work with. There were, of course, also large numbers of new fans created by the rebroadcast of the series in the UK during the last decade and in the US back in 2002, as well as the rereleases of the series on DVD. However, for a lot of both old and new fans, there was nothing like seeing flesh and blood, gorgeous Tracy boys...for as much as we actually got of them in the film, that is. The real pity was not seeing enough of them (save Brady, of course).