Frakes Ranks on original Thunderbirds!

Here is a quote from Jonathan Frakes that appeared in today's local paper:

"In Thunderbirds (the movie), you get to go on an exciting adventure with an international rescue organization. And to be perfectly frank, the memory of the original is considerably better than actually sitting through an hour of it."

I can't believe he would say that. As far as I am concerned, this is the second strike against this movie.

First, they ignore the creator of Thunderbirds, Gerry Anderson, completely. Anderson had been working on bringing back the Tracys for years. Somehow he got shut out and they never even called him for creative input.

Now, Frakes, the director, looks down his nose at the original series. Tell me Jonathan, if the original Thunderbirds was so bad, why did you agree to direct the live-action version? Are the Star Trek residual checks starting to dry up?

I simply do not understand this mentality that believes you can bring back a classic while ignoring the fans that made the show a hit in the first place. They did it with Battlestar Galactica, Lost in Space, Planet of the Apes and now, The Thunderbirds.

[thomas7g]

Its actually a pretty good movie. Its just Frakes aimed for young kids so as an adult you have to be kinda patient with it.

I actually think Frakes is right. We remember the show being better than it is cause we were mostly just kids when we watched it. We have a much higher criteria for special effects and we don't put up with disobeying the laws of physics in scripts like we used to.

[Darth Marley]

if the original Thunderbirds was so bad, why did you agree to direct the live-action version?

I see this kind of comment regerding RDM & BSG on the various boards.

One simple answer is that one might concider one of these old shows as flawed by modern standards, and honestly believe that one might be able to improve it.

The opinion of each viewer will of course vary.

But I can understand the thinking of someone that does a remake, especially since if they thought the original was perfect then they would be less likely to touch it.

How many voices cry out for a remake of Casablanca?

[thomas7g]

Actually... this is a pretty faithful rendition of the original show. it actually follows the original story pretty closely. The only real changes are done to TinTin who went from adult to teenager. But she was a really minor character in the original show. That and the father now goes out on missions. While Alan, the youngest son is too young to fly a Thunderbird machine.

I think most people will agree that this is a pretty good "remake".

Actually you can call it more a continuation cause not much has changed. And its pretty easy to see this as fitting in the same world as the original story.

I have not seen the Thunderbirds movie so I cannot comment on the quality of the film. My problem is the blatent disrespect Frakes has to the original show. If the attitude is that the source material us unworthy of revival, why do it at all? Why not go out on a limb and be radical. Say...like creating something new. Something original. Instead, old shows are "re-imagined" and the results have been disasterous. The list of re-imaginings would include:

Lost in Space (Family values are corny now. Let's make the Robinsons dysfunctional.)

Planet of the Apes(who cares about social satire? We have apes who talk. Thats enough.)

Battlestar Galactica (The original show sucks. To make it better, let's add lots of sex and take away all the action. Oh yeah, lets make everyone hate each other.)

Wild Wild West (James West and Artie were best friends in the original show. That won't work today. Lets make them bicker like 1st graders for the whole movie.)


Why Frakes said what he did is hard to understand. It seems to make sense to want to attract fans of the original show. Imagine how Star Trek fans would have reacted in 1987 if Frakes said that the original show sucked.