Talk:Thunderbirds (2004 film)

Crappy Intro

Removed this line because it seems superfluous and... crappy.

There is extensive use of computer-generated imagery to create the illusion that the Thunderbirds, the fantastic machines which give the name to the production, are real. --76.104.205.73 08:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

See Also

There's a see also link to Team America at the bottom of this page. Not sure why it should be there without a single piece of explanation. I personally equate the two because Team America came out around the same time and Team America featured the marionette stuff we all remember from old school Thunderbirds. Abrynkus 01:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Presumably because the 'Team America' guys reportedly wanted to make a Thunderbirds movie with puppets, but couldn't get the rights because this version was in pre-production? Mark Grant 02:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Possiblly a prequel

After reading all the critisims of the move, including that Alan is already a Thinderbird in the original and that The Hood already is a villian and knows about the Thunderbirds in the original. It seems that is is most likely the updated movie is a prequel to the original series. Can anybody verify this? 70.108.48.238 01:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Your absoulutly right —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.183.68.197 (talk) 21:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It can't be as in the movie Hood knows who the IR members are, but he dosen't know in the original series. Also theres the characters of fermat and Tin-Tins mum (forgot her name). --I.W Iway amway Imagineway Izardway. 17:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Corbet thunderbirds.jpg

Image:Corbet thunderbirds.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 21:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Differences with the original

Never has a section needed a rewrite so badly, but I wonder whether it shouldn't be deleted altogether. Thoughts? (GLG 6/15/07)

No. Each can stand on its own, yet are based on the same concept, so it's necessary to explain the differences. Critic-at-Arms 19:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

who the hell is stephen lowen

as the movie ends it ead dedicated to the memory of stephen lowen, i dont know who that is or if i should mention it in the article

Stephen Lowen is credited as a Rigger on the film, a 28-year-old ex-para working as a rigger on the Pinewood lot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.13.211.142 (talk) 15:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Recent vandalism

I just reverted an edit done by 72.24.175.128 which was done purely as vandalism. I also edited out a link to space station as everywhere else in the article Thunderbird 5 is referred to as Thunderbird 5 and not simply a space station. Doctoroxenbriery 21:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Corbet thunderbirds.jpg

Image:Corbet thunderbirds.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 12:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Thunderbirds group.jpg

Image:Thunderbirds group.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Thunderbirds.jpg

Image:Thunderbirds.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

refer to geographical mistake

in a part there is a news report that says "a volcano eruption in jakarta. i think we should refer to this,as this is a geographical mistake --Dont bite neutrals! (talk) 10:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC) Autosigned by SineBot

"mixed fanbase"???

In the reception section (discussing how the film was received) there is a line saying it had a "mixed fanbase", presumably meaning about half of viewers or critics liked it and the other half disliked it. However, almost everything written after that statement relates to negative reception: very poor box office result relative to budget ($28 million box office vs. $57 million-ish budget), awful Rotten Tomatoes rating, awful Yahoo! moves rating (C+), bad reviews by critics, negative response even from the built-in fanbase from the original series. Given the poor box office performance and the slew of indicators of negative critical reception by professional reviewers and fans alike, what can possibly justify this "mixed fanbase" statement? I think it is obvious that the reception was overwhelmingly negative and there was not, in any meaningful sense, a "mixed fanbase."

In short, I think someone should remove the "mixed fanbase" statement. It is not true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.97.243.208 (talk) 00:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

"F.A.B."?

I just watched the movie again. Many of the "good guy" characters say "F.A.B." (seemingly instead of "Aye"). What does this mean, and what significance is it? Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 18:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Fully Acknowledged and Briefed. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

StolenEyes (talk) 11:19, 22 June 2021 (UTC)"F.A.B." is not an acronym as taken from the lore of the original series. It actually referred to "fabulous", a popular word in 1960s culture that the Andersons adopted as International Rescue's acknowledgement callsign. This was an exception for Anderson productions, as the previous show Stingray used an acronym callsign - "P.W.O.R", or "Proceeding With Orders Received" - as did the series that followed it, Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons with "S.I.G" - "Spectrum Is Green". However, various spin-off media, such as comics, did apply an acronym to the callsign, including the above "Fully Acknowledged and Briefed", and also "Filed, Actioned, Briefed". But both Gerry and Sylvia Anderson maintained many times over the years when asked that "F.A.B." was just short for "fabulous".

Ambiguity in ¶3 of Plot

...pilot them to safety on a hovercrafts.

I can't tell if this should be "...pilot them to safety on a hovercraft." or "...pilot them to safety on hovercrafts." ☺ Dick Kimball (talk) 14:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. (non-admin closure) Eventhorizon51 ^(talk) 13:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

---

Thunderbirds (film) → Thunderbirds (2004 film) – This is not the primary topic. And to disambiguate from Thunderbirds (1952 film). 2A02:C7D:564B:D300:3C1A:53BD:793E:CDDC (talk) 16:46, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. With 94% of page views over a 12-month period (compared to the 1942 and 1952 films) it looks like a primary topic to me. PC78 (talk) 18:35, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support per WP:NCF, you can't have a disambiguated primary topic. Nohomersryan (talk) 19:32, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support. If a title needs to be disambiguated then it should be unambiguous. Tassedethe (talk) 21:39, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: The WP:PRIMARYTOPIC would be the 1960s TV show that this film is based on, but the 2004 film is definitely a lot better known than the 1952 one, which I'd never heard of. Personally I think the year disambiguation is unnecessary, but WP:CONSISTENCY says we should include the year. Digifiend (talk) 16:16, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is a bit complicated, but Thunderbirds (TV series) is far better known and culturally significant than the two unrelated films that preceded it by many years, and I think this does confer some measure of primacy to the film based on it, again by both significance and usage. Andrewa (talk) 20:31, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support due to previous precedents with similar earlier RM's. Even if the Thunderbirds (TV series) is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (and, without looking, I suspect it is), that has no effect on the fact that this film must be moved to Thunderbirds (2004 film) due simply to the existence of the 1942 and 1952 films, and the need to disambiguate from those. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:43, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • P.S. Thunderbirds (film) should instead be a redirect to Thunderbird. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:46, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support. If it's not the primary topic, it should be fully disambiguated. Redirect the current title to the relevant section of the disambiguation page. kennethaw88 • talk 05:42, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support per Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(films)#Between_films_of_the_same_name. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Thunderbirds (2004 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722183855/http://www.sylviaanderson.org.uk/html/movie.html to http://www.sylviaanderson.org.uk/html/movie.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:21, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I'd point out the irony of a movie based on a puppet series being panned for having "wooden characters"...

...but this isn't that kind of talk page.

Still, it's irresistible. 70.66.33.104 (talk) 19:16, 7 October 2024 (UTC)