Thunderbirds movie isn't about the Thunderbirds

thomas7g · July 30th, 2004, 05:58 AM

Frakes actually does a pretty good job directing this movie. Its not bad. The movie is a great kid movie. I would recomend it for the family. Though... its a little too childish for me.

Mostly the show is not actually about the Thunderbird team but about these three young kids, the oldest is about 16 I think, as they try to save the Thunderbirds. The main thunderbird team we know play a smaller role. Though Lady Penelope plays a significant role.

Its like that one Star Trek Next Generation episode, Lower Decks, where the whole show focuses on the lives of these junior officers. And the main stars play supporting roles to the story.

The bulk of the story revolves around the Thunderbird teams youngest son, Alan, who doesn't actually have his own machine, he's too young (15). And TinTin who used to be a minor character but is now a main character. She is now a young teenager that has a crush on Alan. And the third character is the nerdy son of Brain who designed the Thunderbird machines.

The movie is VERY faithful to the original show. They even use the same Thunderbird theme alot. All the machines are back though they are slightly revamped. (Though nowhere near as much as the BG miniseries did ours) If you liked the old show, you should have fun with this. Just as long as you remember, this movie is about the three kids and not the International Rescue team.

July 30th, 2004, 11:39 AM

I don't know. I haven't seen this movie yet but it seems like a let down. I mean, Thunderbirds is about the Tracy family working as a team. Focusing on the youngest member of the Tracys and adding new youth characters seems to be pandering to the kiddie crowd. It doesn't feel right. It is like making a Batman movie that deals mostly with Robin. Robin is o.k. but we are paying to see a Batman flick. Someone said that movies that are aimed towards kids does not nessessarily have to be about kids. When I was a lad, all of my heroes were adults. Batman, Captain Kirk, Professor John Robinson, James Bond, James West, Han Solo, Indiana Jones, Apollo and Starbuck were all guys in their 20s and 30s. I didn't want to be Robin, Boxey, Will Robinson or Short Round. I wasn't them, but I could grow up to be like my adult heroes. The possibility of being heroic as an adult was part of the appeal for me. The reviews for the Thunderbirds have been pretty bad so far. I will still see it but not with the same anticipation that I had when I first heard about the project.

Gemini1999 · July 30th, 2004, 03:31 PM

Tom -

I would have to agree with you - the new film is for the kids! Even moreso than the original series was. Visually, the film gave fans of the original series something to look at - the updated rescue craft & Tracy Island, but almost nothing of the adult members of the cast, nor much in the way of real action in the film. You also likened it to the TNG episode "Below Decks" - where they focused on the junior officers of the Enterprise's crew. I think that a more direct comparison would be the TNG episode "Rascals" - where an away team is changed into pre-teen children by a transporter malfunction and the Enterprise has been taken over by the Ferengi.

I think that the storytelling in the film was much more juvenile in nature than the original series ever was. The original series was very straightforward in its scripts - the only "child" element of the series was the fact that the primary actors were marionettes, not live actors. Like you said, it wasn't a bad film, but if Frakes said that he had problems sitting through the original series, how did he manage to sit through his own film?

If Universal expects to make some money off of Thunderbirds as a film franchise, they should do a better job getting folks to go see it. When I went, there were only 10 -12 people in the theater - and that was on opening day!

On a more upbeat note - TechTV is showing a 3-day marathon of the original Thunderbirds series....!
________
Airsoft Ammo

August 1st, 2004, 08:57 PM

I take no joy in reporting this. Thunderbirds didn't even make it into the top ten movies on it's opening weekend. I guess there won't be a sequel.

Gemini1999 · August 1st, 2004, 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bijou88

I take no joy in reporting this. Thunderbirds didn't even make it into the top ten movies on it's opening weekend. I guess there won't be a sequel.

I just saw the weekend box office stats:

www.boxofficemojo.com

The Thunderbirds film is going to be a huge box office disaster. A little over $2 million and opening below the top 10. At a budget of close to $60,000,000, this one is going to hurt...

Universal/NBC is not gonna be happy!
________
Love quotes advice

thomas7g · August 1st, 2004, 11:30 PM

OW!

That is one SORRY opener!

I have a feeling Jonathan Frakes won't be sitting in a director's chair again! This was baaaad

Really! The film wasn't that bad! Its just for kiddies. OUCH.

jewels · August 2nd, 2004, 12:05 PM

But when you shoot for an audience that is too young for your franchise, and turn off some of your core fans because you've gone too kiddie movie, that's what you can end up getting. I'm betting the DVD will do better proportionally than the box office: it's cheaper to rent or buy than to take the family out at $8-9 a piece.

Gemini1999 · August 2nd, 2004, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jewels

I'm betting the DVD will do better proportionally than the box office: it's cheaper to rent or buy than to take the family out at $8-9 a piece.

Julie -

Whether the film makes it out on DVD very soon, won't really solve the money problem.... Thunderbirds had a budget of 70,000,000 (according to IMDB.com) - If they can't get people in the theater to see it at 6 to 9 bucks a ticket, how many copies of the DVD would sell for twice that amount? It would take a lot of DVD selling to do that!

I really hate to "dis" a film like Thunderbirds....I really wanted to like it, but the only thing I saw in it was "eye candy". If that was enough for me, it would have been great, but the story was complete rubbish and most (not all) of the adult actors (known and unknown) took a back seat to unknown teenage actors.

Universal Studios had a chance to set themselves up with a film franchise where they could make more than one film and make a lot of money doing it. The problem is that they were selliing the film to an audience that wouldn't be familiar with it and the audience that was, they almost totally discounted. They really bungled it - with a markedly low opening weekend, they won't get a second chance...

Later,
Bryan

jewels · August 2nd, 2004, 12:29 PM

Bryan,
I don't think that the box office deficit will be overcome; just that it may do better on DVD and in rental than in the theaters.

Disappointing, as it looked like it would visually be very cool.

Jewels

thomas7g · August 2nd, 2004, 01:41 PM

What did you guys think about the costumes? I thought they were a little too fantasmorific.

August 2nd, 2004, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gemini1999

Julie -

Universal Studios had a chance to set themselves up with a film franchise where they could make more than one film and make a lot of money doing it. The problem is that they were selliing the film to an audience that wouldn't be familiar with it and the audience that was, they almost totally discounted. They really bungled it - with a markedly low opening weekend, they won't get a second chance...

I think you really got to the heart of the matter. I wish the studios would learn from "reimaginings" like Thunderbirds and Catwoman. By discounting the original fans, you turn off a base that made the original popular in the first place. Spiderman is a huge hit because it is true to the roots of the character. How sad and frustrating it is that people who do not love the material they have to work with have the opportunity to do so.

Ian_W359 · August 2nd, 2004, 01:57 PM

Just checked out the UK stats for Thunderbirds at IMDb.com - It's entered at No.3 in the chart for the weekend starting July 23, with takings of a little over £1.35 million ($2.47 million). Topping the chart is Spider-Man 2, with Shrek 2 at No.2. Right now over here the schools summer break is in full swing, so obviously films appealing to children will do well.

One thing that I've noticed in posts here and elsewhere is the change in approach that Frakes has taken in the new movie (I've not exactly been following the news). Would I be right in saying that despite the fact that the original was more or less a kids show, it had a maturity both in writing and direction that the movie couldn't compete with?

All the best,
Ian W359

Ian_W359 · August 2nd, 2004, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gemini1999

I just saw the weekend box office stats:

www.boxofficemojo.com

The Thunderbirds film is going to be a huge box office disaster. A little over $2 million and opening below the top 10. At a budget of close to $60,000,000, this one is going to hurt...

Universal/NBC is not gonna be happy!

Do you think they'll need to call International Rescue to save them from themselves?! Ha Ha Ha!

F.A.B.
Ian W359

August 2nd, 2004, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ian_W359

One thing that I've noticed in posts here and elsewhere is the change in approach that Frakes has taken in the new movie (I've not exactly been following the news). Would I be right in saying that despite the fact that the original was more or less a kids show, it had a maturity both in writing and direction that the movie couldn't compete with?

Many people in the U.S. look down on Gerry Anderson's Supermarionation shows because they starred puppets. Well, Yoda was a puppet, and the character is now an icon to legions of fans. As a result, The Thunderbirds are not exactly a household name in the U.S. This may account for the bigger box office in the U.K. I think the writing on the original Thunderbirds was geared to a family audience. The plots were simple but not simple-minded. For one hour, people of all ages could get lost in a fantastic adventure. The direction of the show was to feature action over characterization. This was not a weakness as this was not unusual for TV shows created in the 1960s. Back then, action was paramount. Today, shows feature much more character developement. The Thunderbirds movie is aimed at kids only. The Tracy family, except for the youngest, are background characters. The plot places kids on the forefront with the goal of appealing to youngsters. The qualities that made the original show so charming has been discarded. As a result, It has suffered at the Box office.

jewels · August 2nd, 2004, 04:14 PM

If you go in expecting the kids to save the world, its not horrid. It's just a typical "kids save the world" 8pm Disney channel movie with excellent hardware. I'd rather have had 6 challenging rescues on the order of the monorail and the oil rig, all handled by the adults--or make one of them the initiation mission for Alan, but it's not horrid--just not as good as it could be.

I wish it had all been as well written as Lady P. and Parker's dialogue which was a bright spot. OK, Lady P. was a bright spot altogether.

I'd love to see more of them doing the rescue things with all that wonderful hardware and ships, but since they missed the mark so far with the audience on this one, I doubt there would be another. Be an excellent Sunday night at 7 or 8pm TV series, with more focus on the adults.

Jewels

thomas7g · August 2nd, 2004, 05:05 PM

I agree Julie!

If all the Thunderbirds were written with ingenuity like Lady Penelope and if you severly reduced the kids, then I think Universal would have made alot more money!

I don't think the fact that they were puppets were the problem with the old look. It was the fact that the puppets looked so much like puppets. Yoda works cause you can forget he's a puppet. The old Thunderbirds don't move well enough in a post Jurassic Park world.

I don't think going against the fans is the real reason the show failed. Not exactly. Its this continued mining of the works of others without understanding what the original creators did to create the appeal in the first place.

Its kinda the same thing. Sorta... But to be honest... if you listened and did a fan generated movie...it would be pretty bad, probably. It would appeal to hardcore fans, but still do bad at the boxoffice. I really can't agree with letting FANS decide things cause I've seen fans make alot of horrible decisions. Watching this fanbase over the last year...If I were a a hollywood producer I would RUN in the other direction when I saw some fans coming! And run very very fast!!!!

The wisdom is in the original creators that had to have done something incredibly creative and wonderful for the show to be a hit in the first place. You have to understand what they did to create that great appeal BEFORE you make one yourself.

I remember when I worked at Disney when they were doing Hercules. There as this great insane egotism. The attitude was "We are DISNEY therefore we can do better than an old classic story that has stood thousands of years of time." Because they are Disney....They completely ignored the whole story of Hercules and pillaged it for stuff to weave their Disneyisms into. Every character must have a cute sidekick that can be made into a plush toy. And each character must at some time sing a song about what they want. And there must always be some extravaganza song where the movie stops and out of nowhere a musical cast and backgrounds suddenly pop into view.

Lets ignore the forces that drove the original hercules, especially the fact that he was born from an affair of Zeus, and his wife hated him! She hated him and she was a GOD! Which makes for a very difficult life and a tragic but heroic story. Yes...lets forget all of that. We can do better...we are DISNEY.

*shakes head*

jewels · August 2nd, 2004, 05:26 PM

Mining stories without understanding what the original did--do you ever have that right!

I think that is what happened with Enterprise. They wanted to get the TOS audience back so they went prequel to TOS, but they floundered badly with characters that don't work together the way Spock, McCoy, Kirk and Scotty did. They never got the chemistry going which is what made Trek work in the 1st place.