Fw: [SHADO] Re: Gerry Anderson to make new TV series of Thunderbirds

Posted by Rob Neal on
URL: https://www.shado-forum.com/Fw-SHADO-Re-Gerry-Anderson-to-make-new-TV-series-of-Thunderbirds-tp2250949p2261269.html

I'm not sure. I am a computer graphics professional myself, so I am well aware of what it takes to make this sort of thing. A few years ago I was involved in an early concept of creating a CGI Thunderbirds, and I really thought it was the way to go, but having seen the CGI Scarlet stuff which cost millions, I'm not so certain now. There was a certain quality about both the puppets and the effects in the original that the new one desperately lacked. It had all the body, but none of the soul.

Someone mentioned "Team America", and I for one thought it was brilliantly implemented. Parker & Stone are big Thunderbirds fans, and that is what inspired them to make it. Apparently the FX designers made fully functioning puppets with controllable facial features and loads of new technology, but they felt it was too much, and a bit 'creepy', so they went with the rather more low-tech versions.

I think if the Thunderbirds concept was thought through properly, without having to resort to politically correct moralising, and kept the stories simple and fun whilst using miniatures and puppets, combined with digital visual effects, they could have another hit on their hands. The important factor Thunderbirds had was it didn't preach down to children, it was an 'adult' show without the sex and violence, so to speak, so it appealed to adults too. Anderson's productions always relied on featuring the hardware, so they should continue to play on that, but without losing perspective on the characters and narrative.

THUNDERBIRDS?! F*** YEAH!! (sorry) ;)

Rob




> If it's CGI it won't, it CAN'T be Thunderbirds.
>
>
> I've got to take issue with that. CGI isn't a result, it's a tool. It's a technique. It's not whether or not it's used, it's whether or not it's used _well._
>
> CGI done properly would give us Thunderbirds vehicles which have the look and feel gigantic, behave as if they mass in kilotons. CGI done properly could give us characters with the same appearance and proportions as the characters in the original show -- if that's what you consider desirable, as I understand Gerry Anderson does -- but without the limitations imposed on them by their strings.
>
> Crappy CGI looks crappy. Amazing CGI looks amazing.
>
> Instead of making the method your litmus test, how about judging the show based on its quality?