discussion Thunderbirds what a let down

[Guest]

Hi all I was an avid fan of the original series. What a let down the new one is, the acting is way way over the top and why did they feel the need to re design them. The thunderbirds are very detailed but the characters not. I for one won't be tuning in again, it could have been so good, what a shame.

 

[Guest]

Sorry....


I don't agree.


I'm also a HUGE long-time fan of the original - I'm 60.


The updated re-boot is just that. An updated re-boot.


I think it was WAY better than I expected. - Still not great though.


The original was great, but I think a lot of us see it through rosy glasses now.


Most of the episodes were WAY too long and were very dragged out.


Gerry Anderson made the first 9 episodes as 25 minute progs.


It was Lew Grade who demanded they were made into an hour and the (frequently) pointless 'padding' in the early episodes really shows.


Hats off to the production team for getting it so right for the 21st century audience.


I bet they are just as miffed as us though that they are restricted to such a short run time.


Cinema movie in a few years???


I can almost hear the bean counters planning it now.


Looking forward to the Blu-ray series 1 release.


And I STILL love the original.


Roy.

 

[Guest]

I don't know, no strings attached, it's lacking something, can't put my finger on what, but I'm sticking to my guns on this one WHY CHANGE THE LOOK OF THE ORIGINALS the thunderbirds are iconic why change the way they look. As a master of all things jag how would you feel if someone decided to change the way an E Type looked.

 

[monica]

I did not even know there was a remake of them i did lov the show


when younger ,


will have to see if i can find it,

 

[Guest]

.......


But they have 're-made' the E Type....


First time it was the XK8 - Jag themselves called it the 'new' E Type.


NOW there's the F Type......


It happens, but the E Type is STILL always there.


Roy.

 

[Dave W]

I don't know, no strings attached, it's lacking something, can't put my finger on what, but I'm sticking to my guns on this one WHY CHANGE THE LOOK OF THE ORIGINALS the thunderbirds are iconic why change the way they look. As a master of all things jag how would you feel if someone decided to change the way an E Type looked.

I haven't seen the new series but I've seen the trailer.First thing I noticed was they've changed the shape of Thunderbird 2. I think the original looks better.And I'm not keen on this CGI stuff.So I won't be watching it.

 

[Alan 45]

My love for thunderbirds was the models and not much else this new thing is CGI so I won't be watching it

 

[PaulTRose]

i quite enjoyed it...........and to be honest i loved the redesign of T2


been a fan of anderson since i was little.......grew up with thunderbirds and cap scarlet and later on ufo/space 1999

 

[Guest]

Not just Tb2 all of them have had a change (although they have added a new one which I quite like) I just think it's a bit of a kick in the teeth to GA

 

[Guest]

I watched it can't really say I liked it, then again can't say I disliked it. It was a little over the top, it was trying a bit to hard I'll give another watch......

 

[Guest]

Ahh grown men griping about a kid's tv show!


Personally I love the original, but face facts! No-one is going to make a puppet version these days because it's too expensive & the kids wouldn't watch it.


I've seen the trailer & it's ok - not a patch on the original, but it looks good.


Who's not going to build the models that will undoubtedly be released in the near future?

 

[Gern]

Who's not going to build the models that will undoubtedly be released in the near future?

Did anyone ever make a consistent set (ie all the same scale) of the original TB ships?

 

[grumpa]

I remember the show when I was younger and loved it, but wont watch sequel, not if its CGI and no marionettes.

 

[james pithouse]

my god I thought this was a model forum not a adults forum talking about kids tv so here goes GO thunderbirds 1,2,3,4,5,6

 

[peterairfix]

I had a little look on it and one thing sprang to mind IF IT AINT BROKE DON'T FIX IT?


What a let down


Talking of remakes danger mouse and the clangers have had a new outing but done as the originals were

 

[Robert1968]

my god I thought this was a model forum not a adults forum talking about kids tv so here goes GO thunderbirds 1,2,3,4,5,6

Sorry James but you got the numbers the wrong way round


It was 5..........4.........3.........2.......1.....( big rocket thrust ) thunderbirds are go!!!!!


What by the way was thunderbird 6? ( was that in the pods of TB2)


Hahahahaahahh


Regards Robert

 

[Robert1968]

Just watched a trailer and they don't do it for me ( good special effects for CGI ( but too much like the clone wars etc


As earlier members have said yes it's been re installed like maybe a computer ( we don't work with amstrad anymore)


It's good that the young can see a fantasy we saw in our day ( without the strings this time)


Who will be first to release models I wonder? My bets on Airfix ( click and build ) aimed at the younger audiences


Maybe Revell??


Robert

 

[Guest]

Jim thanks for bringing some sanity to this site, of course you are right we shouldn't be wasting valuable modelling time debating a rubbish remake of an iconic series, I think that's the best comment yet on this hideous remake of a classic show.

 

[Guest]

Sorry James but you got the numbers the wrong way round
It was 5..........4.........3.........2.......1.....( big rocket thrust ) thunderbirds are go!!!!!


What by the way was thunderbird 6? ( was that in the pods of TB2)


Hahahahaahahh


Regards Robert

Thunderbird 6 was a bi-plane, watch the movie!

 

[Vaughan]

I think the original shape of the thunderbirds was better and could have been kept in this new version what's wrong with curved shapes they're all around us even in this day and age. But good luck to the new series my three year old grandson loves it and plays with the di-cast models released in the early 90's that my son had when he was little.


View attachment 238347