Thunderbirds Remake - Going Nowhere Fast

It looks as though Gerry's CGI Thunderbirds remake has stalled due to the
rights issues:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/06/24/thunderbirds_remake/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/5617959/Thunderbirds-remake-hits-buffers-over-rights-wrangle.html


--
Jason Hellwege
[hidden email]


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 04:13:51 +1000
Jason Hellwege <[hidden email]> wrote:

> It looks as though Gerry's CGI Thunderbirds remake has stalled due to the
> rights issues:
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/06/24/thunderbirds_remake/
>

This is quite sad:

He lamented: "I know people love the show. I get told every day of
the week. Frankly, it's the most important thing in my life that I
remake it. Not being able to do so is tearing me apart."

Gerry's 80 now and I would think that he probably won't get his
wish.

James

CONTENTS DELETED

In my opinion, Grade is just a businessman who, along with ITV, is just milking the back catalogue of old UK TV shows. He is, of course, the man who famously cancelled Dr Who back in '89 but who regrets it now, considering the hit it has become. I certainly hope ITV do go bust as they have no shredof creative talent left and just produce rubbish. If I see another forensic-detective-with-personal-problems or some twee effort like Heartbeat type of show, I'll go insane.

British TV produced some great stuff in the 60's & 70's, including Andersonshows. I avoided the CG remake of Captain Scarlet 'cos I though it would be pants like the live action Thunderbirds movie (Spy Kids with Thunderbirdscharacters in it). But on the strength of seeing the first story on DVD, Ibought the whole damn box set and now it sits on my shelf, autographed by Gerry himself:-).

I got him to sign it at the Festival of Ideas 2008 in Bristol. I was last in line for signing and got to chat briefly to him. I asked him his opinion of ITV, who stupidly cut the show in half and put it on saturday morning insome banal kiddie show, and he replied:

"They should be all f****** shot!"

It was both shocking and very funny to hear him say this, but he was dead right. ITV is run by idiots and it deserves to go under.I don't see how theycan reject TB, a show with 45 years of street cred and obvious money-spinner.

Hi All :)

According to people I know in TV and Film production, I think you'll find it's Gerry's very involvement that IS the problem, and IS a stumbling block to getting the Thunderbirds project off the ground.

Putting this delicately, Gerry is not popular within the industry.

You, I and everyone else on this list (hell the whole world) knows what Gerry can achieve. But, that's not ALL that counts. I'd back Gerry with my last penny, but he has rubbed a lot of people 'up the wrong way' over the years, especially in TV circles (full of fragile and sensitive egos) and I think you'll find THAT is part of the problem.

Also, going on TV and 'shooting off' was the last straw from what I hear...

You're right though, ITV needs a change of management for it's very survival... The current Grade isn't up to grade, and certainly is not up to filling Lew Grade's boots. Michael Grade has come from a very comfortable industry background, and in my and many other people is the wrong kind of animal to lead a difficult business area such as ITV and other similar companies. The current Grade is "out of his depth", and that's a quote I heard personally from "within"

Maybe time will tell, but time is tight and budgets tighter for ITV and certainly and unfortunately tight for Gerry. Maybe the ITV buyout will shake things up a little...

More power to your elbow, Gerry!!

Best, Griff

--- In [hidden email], "Hemmings, R.K." <rkh@...> wrote:

Hi Virgil1864,

Yes, I agree pretty much word for word.

Alas, ITV has very little creativity left within it (I have personal dealings), and too much lack of vision to see that 'product' comes from vision, imagination, daring and having enough guts to see the 'product' through to its fruition.

No, they (ITV) are now all about maximizing the catalog in as many mediums as possible, NOT the production of that contained therein. There have been major arguments about the non-success of Blu-Ray re-issues and getting as many people to re-buy products they have already purchased on VHS, DVD, and now they seriously wonder why people aren't prepared to go all-out Blu-Ray!

Could have something to do with content (who seriously want Britain/US has talent on Blu-Ray???) I'd rather gnaw my own leg off, than waste a single second of my life on such trash, but it's going to have a Blu-Ray...

Back to Gerry. I don't mean to be smug here, but I did invest (a fair amount 5 figures) in the New Captain Scarlet. My accountant advised me not to, but I did, and I do not regret it for a millisecond :)

I REALLY want to see New Thunderbirds made, will invest in it, and just pray to heaven that I get the chance, and that Gerry is in full control. No one on earth has more right to do this, and it makes me sick to my stomach, that it is being intentionally held back because of politics, and believe meTHAt is what it is.

Having said all that, the ONLY production I would REALLY like to see more would be a Gerry Anderson development of UFO (maybe 2080's instead of 1980'sbut with some serious retro). I have no interest AT ALL in anyone else attempting to remake UFO. Sounds pompous, but in my opinion 'they' don't have the moral right to do so as much as Gerry, and unless 'they' have grown up with UFO, they won't have the perspective needed to accomplish it to any current fans expectation.

I know this is slightly OT, but I have to admit... cringe... here it comes... that with my kiddies head on, I quite liked Frakes' Thunderbirds... there, I've said it! Oh well, there goes any semblance of credibility ;)

Griff

--- In [hidden email], "virgil1864" <nemo1701@...> wrote:

I loved the New Captain Scarlet. If it had got a 6pm showing on BBC2 like the old shows did a while back. I'm sure it would have done a lot better.

Thunderbirds and UFO can be remade or updated, but we have to remember thataudiences are much more sophisticated and educated than 40 years ago. Theyrealized this with New Captain Scarlet so Mars looked much more like we now know. Space Precinct, on the other hand, was just not credible.

Though the old shows are great, the concept would need to be much slicker. Does anyone really think the old Thunderbirds and SHADO could remain undercover? As Star Trek realized, we want to see the characters and stories develop.

I'd have loved to have seen a new Thunderbirds exploring the origins of International Rescue, or perhaps move the story on to Alan and TinTin running a new International Rescue.

UFO could be remade by using the research that comes out of the recent space missions. Aquatic life on Europa or Enceladus, or maybe Titan. We know somuch more about the universe now and our limitations so a new storyline could be much more realistic.

ITV today though is total pants. Does anybody still watch it?

Thanks for investing in CS Griff - great show, pity it was screwed by ITV. I certainly think that TB or UFO could be 're-imagined' in a similar way.The main problem with UFO would be the now-iconic look since it was a 1969 view of 1980. It would look a bit like Austin powers meets Thunderbirds, so would need some design updating. But hey, Dr Who is back, so why not Anderson stuff?.

Oh, to have £15 million. I'd give the cash straight to Gerry and tell himto get on with it. As ITV continues to sink, Grade will jump ship at some point, no doubt with a nice fat pension.

Yes, the scheduling of NCS was pure vandalism, and makes me wonder whether it was done on purpose. These things do happen...

But, NCS will go down in the future as a milestone in CGI, and will be hugeat some point in the future. Film and imaging technology is an evoltion made "by standing on the shoulders of giants". Final Fantasy and NCS use a technique that was groundbreaking and needed a certain leap of faith to get completed at all. "Hypermarionation" A very laborious and in certain way runs parallel to "Supermarionale", where every single object you see has been especially painstakingly created for the show.

Investing in the future: That's the whole point I attempted to explain to various people (my accountant included). From a personal standpoint, it didn't matter to me at all if NCS was a fabulously financial success. I didn't invest for that reason. I got the chance in a very small way to help make it happen at all! That's much more valuable to me.

How could I look into the eyes of my future grandchildren and say, "Oh yes,I made a good return on that". The important thing to me is that it helpedin small way to make it happen at all, and that it will be there for everyone to see for generations.

I would LOVE the chance to see what Gerry would do with UFO. Now a Gerry Anderson Hypermarionation version of UFO 2080's would get round a lot of problems for fans. It would be possible to pay testament to the original wonderful actors by recreating their persona's, voices and even track their original body movements, actions, and emotions.

All we need are good and great story lines...

Best to all :)

Griff  

--- In [hidden email], "virgil1864" <nemo1701@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks for investing in CS Griff - great show, pity it was screwed by ITV. I certainly think that TB or UFO could be 're-imagined' in a similar way.The main problem with UFO would be the now-iconic look since it was a 1969 view of 1980. It would look a bit like Austin powers meets Thunderbirds, sowould need some design updating. But hey, Dr Who is back, so why not Anderson stuff?.
>
> Oh, to have £15 million. I'd give the cash straight to Gerry and tell him to get on with it. As ITV continues to sink, Grade will jump ship at some point, no doubt with a nice fat pension.
>

Okay, fair point.

What I mean by this, is that it is now possible to capture an actor from anolder 2D (even to the oldest motion pictures - i.e. Laurel and Hardy) filmand extrapolate their moment, actions, body language into mathematical 3D movement/action, in the same way that current motion capture (as used in NCS) detects and plots the moments of body motion of actors with point axis detection (i.e. NCS, Gollum in Lord of the rings). Then recreate exact CGI actors that replicate the original movements and bodystyle/actions exactly. Moreover, once the body/gate analysis has been created, it is possible to create new situations/scene with these 'actors' in entirely new situations.

I've seen it done, and it's frightening real. I was astonished. In the example I saw, they used Oliver Hardy, showed him from an original scene, and then 'he' walked out of shot and did a new piece to camera. To my 'trained eye', I could not tell the difference, except I knew it could NOT be original material. Expect to see A LOT more of this in the future.

It is even possible to capture facial characteristics exactly, the way an actor walks, moves, gesticulates etc.

It is also possible to capture the phonemes used say by Ed Bishop, and generate any new speech using his actual phonetic characteristics. Think of an updated, "Reflections in the Water"... now that is ironic. I certainly think Commander Straker would approve.

There is a whole new legal debate as to the ethics of portraying someone who has passed away. The current rational is that it should be handled as if the actor is still alive, and their relatives receive what the actor would have received. I guess it would also help keep the memory of that actor/person 'alive'...

This moral angle is always going to be a tricky one.

But, referring back to Star Wars, many - if not most - of all the actors 'signed away' their image rights/merchandising as they didn't realize George Lucas would REALLY capitalize on this area. One famous actress Carrie Fisher hated the fact that she could walk into a toy store and see herself portrayed as some crumby doll of Princess Leia. She made absolutely no money from the any image of herself, and indeed could not do anything about it. I believe she has "not spoken" to George Lucas since... It's the same for many many actors.

Difficult area... intersting to see how it develops

Griff

--- In [hidden email], "Griff Wason" <griff@...> wrote:

...I would LOVE the chance to see what Gerry would do with UFO. Now a GerryAnderson Hypermarionation version of UFO 2080's would get round a lot of problems for fans. It would be possible to pay testament to the original wonderful actors by recreating their persona's, voices and even track their original body movements, actions, and emotions.
>
> All we need are good and great story lines...
>
> Best to all :)
>
> Griff

Fascinating stuff!  I imagine the future for actors may be just "sitting for a scan" rather than actually acting.
Brian C.

--- On Fri, 6/26/09, Griff Wason <[hidden email]> wrote:


From: Griff Wason <[hidden email]>
Subject: [SHADO] Re: Thunderbirds Remake - Going Nowhere Fast
To: [hidden email]
Date: Friday, June 26, 2009, 8:49 AM








Okay, fair point.

What I mean by this, is that it is now possible to capture an actor from anolder 2D (even to the oldest motion pictures - i.e. Laurel and Hardy) filmand extrapolate their moment, actions, body language into mathematical 3D movement/action, in the same way that current motion capture (as used in NCS) detects and plots the moments of body motion of actors with point axis detection (i.e. NCS, Gollum in Lord of the rings). Then recreate exact CGI actors that replicate the original movements and bodystyle/actions exactly. Moreover, once the body/gate analysis has been created, it is possible to create new situations/scene with these 'actors' in entirely new situations.

I've seen it done, and it's frightening real. I was astonished. In the example I saw, they used Oliver Hardy, showed him from an original scene, and then 'he' walked out of shot and did a new piece to camera. To my 'trained eye', I could not tell the difference, except I knew it could NOT be original material. Expect to see A LOT more of this in the future.

It is even possible to capture facial characteristics exactly, the way an actor walks, moves, gesticulates etc.

It is also possible to capture the phonemes used say by Ed Bishop, and generate any new speech using his actual phonetic characteristics. Think of an updated, "Reflections in the Water"... now that is ironic. I certainly think Commander Straker would approve.

There is a whole new legal debate as to the ethics of portraying someone who has passed away. The current rational is that it should be handled as if the actor is still alive, and their relatives receive what the actor would have received. I guess it would also help keep the memory of that actor/person 'alive'...

This moral angle is always going to be a tricky one.

But, referring back to Star Wars, many - if not most - of all the actors 'signed away' their image rights/merchandisin g as they didn't realize GeorgeLucas would REALLY capitalize on this area. One famous actress Carrie Fisher hated the fact that she could walk into a toy store and see herself portrayed as some crumby doll of Princess Leia. She made absolutely no money from the any image of herself, and indeed could not do anything about it. I believe she has "not spoken" to George Lucas since... It's the same for manymany actors.

Difficult area... intersting to see how it develops

Griff

--- In SHADO@yahoogroups. com, "Griff Wason" <griff@...> wrote:

...I would LOVE the chance to see what Gerry would do with UFO. Now a GerryAnderson Hypermarionation version of UFO 2080's would get round a lot of problems for fans. It would be possible to pay testament to the original wonderful actors by recreating their persona's, voices and even track their original body movements, actions, and emotions.
>
> All we need are good and great story lines...
>
> Best to all :)
>
> Griff
















[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Just like the movie "Looker," in which a plastic surgeon and an
actress discover a plot in which actors are scanned and then
murdered because they aren't needed anymore, just their
scanned images are used in commercials and TV shows.

Evelyn Duncan
[hidden email]

"All work and no play pretty much sums it up, doesn't it?"
-- Tim Hunter





In a message dated 6/26/2009 12:08:49 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
[hidden email] writes:

I imagine the future for actors may be just "sitting for a scan" rather
than actually acting.



**************Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the
grill. (http://food.aol.com/grilling?ncid=emlcntusfood00000005)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Griff, your website design is very attractive and the models are amazing.

Paul

Griff wrote:
This moral angle is always going to be a tricky one.
---------------------------------------------------

About as tricky a moral dilemma as grave robbing, in my humble opinion.

There's maybe a case for creating a limited number of shots to finish off aperformance largely complete - the case of Oliver Reed in Gladiator comes to mind - or maybe where the odd shot from an old film is too severely damaged to rescue or is lost completely, but not for building a performance from scratch.


The performance of an actor is a personal response to the script, other actors, the situation etc, etc.
This process wouldn't be a new performance by the deceased performer it would be creating a marionette from a corpse.


Incidentally, the chances of such a process being used for a UFO remake are, I would suggest, zero. Any studio producing a remake may not go out of their way to offend the relatively small number of existing UFO fans but their happiness would certainly be a very minor consideration given that the film/series would have to appeal to a far wider demographic.
Expect the general UFO one-line concept to survive (maybe), but not much else. Casting is going to be aimed at teenage boys and Star Wars/Trek fans, sadly a recreation of Ed Bishop, however faithful, wouldn't acheive this.

For these sorts of reasons I'm never one to hold out much hope for new series or films of cherished older series. The originals were a product of their time and the society and people who made them, without all that there is no reason at all to imagine that a new version would have any sort of meritat all.

Regards
John

Hi John,

Yes. On reflection, that (tricky) was a glib comment that didn't at all reflect MY personal opinion on this area.

As they say, "if it feels wrong, it normally is". There is something certainly distasteful, uncomfortable about portraying someone after they have passed on, even if it was with their or their families permission. It's bad enough, sometimes upsetting and hard to watch a deceased loved one in a photoor video, let a lone, have newly created imagery, or even whole films. I feel for the families of anyone who has a family member portrayed on the bigor little screen who has passed away. I know quite a few people in the profession, and in some cases seeing their own much younger persona replayed over and over on Sky/satellite can be upsetting, almost 'rubbing in' the fact that they are no longer who or what they used to be and able to portray, and knowing it will go on and on seemingly forever.

I know a few others who are quite comfortable with this idea. I don't know,call it vanity, knowing that a performance they once did, will be seen maybe even hundreds of years after they are no more.

The trouble is John, this technology and 'virtual acting' WILL and IS goingto happen, it is starting to happen, and will change entirely the potential role of actors on screen, even possibly taking their 'power/bankability away'. The possibility to have 'perfect people, and perfect performances. This has been touched on in another email, but it will happen, and probably "because there is a lot of money involved" happen in the worst way. I know for a fact, that at this moment, discussion are going on to continue film sagas where the original actors have become too old, and "youngen then up" and then portray them maybe again and again... and WITH the actors permission! The actor while they are alive will get payments, and where appropriate marketing royalties, as though they had played then role. This is happening now. Some of the most popular big named episodic films are going to get this treatment, where the actors are too old and craggy to act in the films themselves. They will get billing, and they will be on the big screen, BUT itwon't be them!

My sister is a professional violinist, and she and the orchestra she plays with were furious and really offended recently, when they discovered that instead of recording a few performances, and then the producer picking the best one, the orchestra played three 'takes', and then the three were patched together, slightly speeded up, parts unpicked, and augmented, and then portrayed as a solid 'live' performance, and stuck out it out on CD. Of course, this has been going on for years in the pop world, but this is new to classical music and is a detrimental step.

Expect this sort of treatment in the film/TV world...

To cross the chasm to then portraying that same actor in a new role after they have passed on is a whole different ball game.

One of the last 'performance' by Marlon Brando was a speaking role in the "Godfather" game. But, they unbeknownst to everyone also portrayed a visual likeness of his 'character'. Marlon Brando (and his family) had no copyright to the Godfather 'likeness' used in the game, and hence there was no caseto answer...

...this area is also going to be 'tricky', if I can use that word again...

BTW, Of course I know UFO will never be made (certainly by Gerry Anderson) in the way I envisaged in my previous post. Of course I know this. Frankly,I would rather that 'they' leave UFO completely alone. This movie idea currently being circulated fills me with the creeping horrors. What I meant though is that if it had to happen, I would rather Gerry do it, and using Hypermarionation techniques.

I'll post the technical details of the 'virtual actor' technique (mentionedin a previous post) a little later.

Thanks,

Griff

--- In [hidden email], "john_nhojuk" <jks@...> wrote:
>
> Griff wrote:
> This moral angle is always going to be a tricky one.
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> About as tricky a moral dilemma as grave robbing, in my humble opinion.
>
> Regards
> John

Evelyn, very good :) The reason given was never really spoken about in the movie. They didn't want to pay the actresses residuals. They made the plot on how they wanted to control what people thought watching commercials, brain washing them.

Bruce
----- Original Message -----
From: [hidden email]
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 1:18 PM
Subject: Re: [SHADO] Re: Thunderbirds Remake - Going Nowhere Fast





Just like the movie "Looker," in which a plastic surgeon and an
actress discover a plot in which actors are scanned and then
murdered because they aren't needed anymore, just their
scanned images are used in commercials and TV shows.

Evelyn Duncan
[hidden email]

"All work and no play pretty much sums it up, doesn't it?"
-- Tim Hunter

In a message dated 6/26/2009 12:08:49 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
[hidden email] writes:

I imagine the future for actors may be just "sitting for a scan" rather
than actually acting.

**************Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the
grill. (http://food.aol.com/grilling?ncid=emlcntusfood00000005)

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Paul,

That's really kind of you to say that!

Thanks!

Griff

BTW, I have had a LOT of people (many through the www.ufoseries.com website) ask me if I am going to tackle a UFO series of illustrations at some point. What do you think?

I have to say that I am a little concerned on first glance at the cover of the UFO Technical manual. When measured up that UFO looks dimensioanlly incorrect... let's hope that's an early draft :)

Griff

--- In [hidden email], Paul Bowers <pbowers@...> wrote:
>
> Griff, your website design is very attractive and the models are amazing.
>
> Paul

S'truth! I am not doing very well today, darn it!

I meant to send that message offline. Sorry folks.

Griff

ps. His head drooping ever lower with each email.

--- In [hidden email], "Griff Wason" <griff@...> wrote:

Griff Wason wrote:

> BTW, I have had a LOT of people (many through the www.ufoseries.com website) ask me if I am going to tackle a UFO series of illustrations at some point. What do you think?

Don't do it. Your level of displayed detail is too high, and you might
accidentally expose some *real* tech about SHADO.

Paul

--- In [hidden email], Paul Bowers <pbowers@...> wrote:
Precisely. One man or the security of a multi-million dollar organisation. What do you think will happen?