Talk:Thunderbirds Are Go

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Thunderbirds Are Go article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thunderbirds Are Go has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
April 18, 2010	Good article nominee	Listed

Film: British

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the British cinema task force.

Science Fiction Mid‑importance

	Speculative fiction portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Television: ITC productions Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the ITC productions task force.

Techniscope width

Yes, I wondered about that reading the Techniscope article, but the film was definitely shot in a wider aspect ratio than 2.35:1, as the edges of the picture are occasionally missed on the DVD release. This fact is mentioned on the Amazon review:

Unfortunately the original extremely wide 2.74:1 Techniscope image is cropped to more conventional 2.35:1, to the extent that the careful compositions are noticeably damaged, which director David Lane refers to in his joint commentary with producer Sylvia Anderson (who also played Lady Penelope).

Also, the fact about Panavision is mentioned in the commentary by the directors. Bob 15:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Date

Does the film indicate when it was set ? -- Beardo 04:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UA / TB6

I love this comment from Fanderson: "The feature film premiere on December 12th, 1966 at the London Pavilion was a massive success and executives at United Artists, the film's distributors, told Anderson that they anticipated that the Thunderbirds film series would soon rival James Bond. Unfortunately, the film proved to be a box office disaster, and United Artists were so surprised and confused by its failure that they put it down to a fluke and immediately commissioned a second film."

How much of a flop was this film ?

(I remember being disappointed that I didn't get to see it - but am not sure why. Seems unlikely that I was too small - I recall seeing "You Only Live Twice" when it came out. Limited runs in the cinema ? Before the days of the multiplexes.)

-- Beardo 14:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've always found the film's failure quite surprising. Gerry Anderson said in an interview that he suspects it was because people weren't used to seeing big screen transfers of television series. It is a shame it failed though, I'd like to have seen a few more Thunderbirds in widescreen. Bob talk 22:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Who had already moved from TV to cinema - surely there were others ? And it still seems odd that they commissioned a second TB film even so. -- Beardo 05:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Thunderbirds-Are-GO.jpg

Image:Thunderbirds-Are-GO.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)[reply]

References Section - wasn't there a band?

Does anyone remember a band in the mid or late 80's called Thunderbirds are Go? I saw them in London, possibly at the Limelight. I doubt they recorded, but I remember they put on a good show. Of course, this is 20-odd years ago so it may have been a band with a song named after the show or just a Thunderbirds theme. I do remember they had pretty fab Thunderbirds outfits, though...--Yickbob (talk) 01:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Thunderbirds Are Go/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: –– Jezhotwells (talk) 13:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: No disambiguations found.

Link rot: No dead links found.

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
Fleeing Glenn Field in a car with Penelope and Parker in pursuit in FAB1, transferring to a speedboat and then boarding a helicopter piloted by an accomplice, The Hood is apparently killed when Parker shoots it down with the Rolls-Royce's built-in machine gun. This could do with splitting into two sentences and clarification. As it stands the first "Fleeing Glenn Field in a car with Penelope and Parker" implies that they are all in the same car. Done

Landing back on Tracy Island after shuttling Zero-X, Alan feels unappreciated when Jeff insists that he remain on standby at base while his brothers spend the night partying. "after shuttling Zero-X"? What does this mean? {[done}}

'~~'and reveal themselves to be cycloptic "Rock Snakes"." Wouldn't it be clearer to say "one-eyed"?~~ Done

~~"It was quite a hoot ... I was never really sure if I looked like my puppet or it looked like me." The italic I looks like a slash here, is it necessary for it to be italicised?~~ Done

Pre-production for lasted three months, and a shooting schedule of sixteen weeks was allotted to coincide with the filming of episodes for Thunderbirds Series Two presume that "the film" or "Thunderbirds Are Go" is meant to be in here Done

Although the Supermarionation puppets of Thunderbirds Are Go are of the same proportions as those of the Thunderbirds television series, while production continued development progressed on a new prototype puppet with improved oral articulation, its mouth constructed from latex to enable more realistic movement of the lips and jaws Suggest breaking this rather over complex sentence down. Done

Suggest that you go through this again, I may have missed other typos. I made a few minor copy-edits.diff

Supermarionation historian Stephen La Rivière suggests that the film also faced competition on its release in 1996 from other new family films such as Leslie H. Martinson's Batman and James Hill's Born Free 1996? Done

Despite of the underperformance of Thunderbirds Are Go, Gerry Anderson received two awards... "Despite of"? Done
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
The second Thunderbirds film, Thunderbird 6, which was shot simultaneously with Captain Scarlet, featured puppets that were intended as a compromise between the charm of the caricatured Thunderbirds marionettes and the realism of the next generation. Who says they had "charm"? This needs attribution. Done

Does the premiere date really need 11 references? Likewise, it was revealed that public interest was mediocre and box office revenue poor,[4][7][15][23][22][69] Done

References, check out, all online sources live, all appear RS, slight tendecy to over reference as noted above.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
~~The article is certainly thorough, I query the possibly over detailed section on Bob Monkhouse in the casting section.~~ Done
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

OK, on hold for seven days for the issues above to be addressed
Thanks for addressing those concerns. I am happy to list this as a Good Article. Congratulations! –– Jezhotwells (talk) 11:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Thunderbirds Are Go. 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:

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) 14:35, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2067?

The date of the second Zero-X mission is given here as 2067, with the rationalisation given that this was the date *intended* by Gerry and Sylvia, even though the on-screen evidence (Jeff's newspaper) says 2066.

HOWEVER

The date of the Zero-X mission in the opening episode of Captain Scarlet is definitively shown on-screen to be 2068, and since according to dialogue in Thunderbirds are Go, Earth is only in a suitable postion in relation to Mars *every twenty four months (two years)*, the previous mission would HAVE to have been 2066. The original attempt that was ruined by the Hood would have been 2064, a year before International Rescue began operations, which would explain why they are not mentioned at all during the first emergency.

I would strongly suggest that the 2067 date be changed to 2066 since on-screen evidence and dialogue in the finished productions is more accurate than original intent. 2A05:87C7:300A:D100:DEC9:438E:6E01:85EA (talk) 18:50, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]