Talk:Thunderbirds (TV series)/Archive 1

Untitled
Please consider joining the project! HowardBerry 19:22, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Jeff Tracy didn't have a daughter. I assume that you're thinking of Tin-Tin who was the daughter of Jeff's manservant, Kyrano. -- Derek Ross

- Please see the discussion at talk:Thunderbird_(disambiguation). - UtherSRG 20:18, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

- "Meddings came up with a novel solution to the problem, which he first used in the premiere episode, "Trapped in the Sky". " Predating that, I remember seeing this technique when it was originally used in Supercar. It showed Supercar on the M1 motorway, soon after that had opened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.106.32 (talk) 00:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Production credits
Do we need such an extensive list of production credits? (referring to the recent edit) 23skidoo 03:06, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


 * No, I don't think we do. I think it's probably an anonymous editor excited that they have something to contribute and not realizing that it's overdetailed.  Since a lot of the same people worked on multiple Anderson shows, however, maybe it could be usefully transferred to Supermarionation or the like. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:17, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * That's a good idea. Maybe a list of "regular contributors" to not just the Supermarionation shows, but Anderson productions in general, such as Barry Gray, David Lane, Shane Rimmer, etc. I was going to revert the credit list that was added, but I'll wait and see if anyone else chimes in first. Cheers. 23skidoo 16:27, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Imitations
I have expanded the Parodies section to include a reference to the South African series Interster, made using supermarionation techniques in the late 1970s. Humansdorpie 17:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

This article seems to repeat itself over and over about Team America World Police. &mdash;User:ACupOfCoffee @ 05:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Stingray
How do you do it so that the Stingray link will connect directly to the TV show entry, and not to the fish? 70.50.53.38 20:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Like this 'Stingray' Ben 20:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Italicised Thunderbirds?
Just wondering what peoples opinions are for italicising the names of the Thunderbird craft to conform to wikipedia manual of style. The consensus on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (titles) is that ship and spacecraft names should be italicised so by that argument Thunderbird 3 and I guess TB4 should be italicised, but the others aren't really ships or spaceships and what about FAB1 and Fireflash? Obviously all the names should be consistent. I'm guessing italics might be the way to go. Anyone have any objections? Bobfos 17:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, well according to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (titles) as callsigns they don't really count as ship names, so for the record I seems they should not be italcised.

Bobfos 01:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Article assessment
As requested here I've assessed the article. I've given the article a B on the class scale. It contains a wealth of information but very little of it is verifiable by the reader. One of the major aims for the article should be to find sources for the information already present.

The organization is sometimes confusing. What have uniforms got to do with the plot? Perhaps production would be a better place for this production design related information. The episode list needs a summary paragraph as an introduction to the content of the subarticle - just state the number of seasons, episodes and the years of broadcast.

The list of credits should be written as prose. I would give some thought as to which crew members are notable enough for the wikipedia article.

The lists of references, parodies and imitations should be rewritten as prose and properly referenced.

The article is very long and some of the detailed information should be moved into subarticles - a separate article for the vehicles with a brief summary of the major vehicles remaining seems like a good first step to me.

You are missing a section on the critical response to the show. Try to find and summarise some reviews, even if the historical response is hard to retrieve then there must be plenty of DVD reviews out there.--Opark 77 12:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Meaning of FAB
Please add a comment in the article as to the origin of the word 'FAB'....is it an acronym for something? 60.226.239.121 21:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Ooops...my bad, I just noticed the article does explain it. But there are no sources cited. 60.226.239.121 22:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thunderbirds Vehicles
As suggested in the above article assessment I was thinking of moving the Thunderbirds vehicles to a separate page called 'Thunderbirds Vehicles". Does anyone have any objections or alternatives names for the page? Bobfos 16:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Is this including the machines as well? As then the article title shoud reflect this. AxG   ҈  ►  talk  16:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I was thinking of moving everything that's currently under machines on the main page. "Thunderbirds Machines" then? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bobfos (talk • contribs) 17:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC).


 * OK, I've moved the Thunderbirds machines section to a dedicated article entitled Thunderbirds Machines and left a brief run-down of the main TB craft.

Bobfos 11:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Why doesn't the Hood have his own page?
Most of the other main characters have their own pages/stubs. Admittedly, he isn't a main character (he's not in every episode), but he is a recurring arch-enemy to International Rescue. --85.92.179.141 21:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Carlton's site
Carlton's official Thunderbirds site was deactivated after the merger with Granada. I've edited the eternal link to direct to the last archived copy at the Wayback Machine. --Tikatu (talk) 04:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Uniform Question
On the Thunderbirds IR uniforms they had the sash and belt that held a sidearm and two tube thingys (One yellow, one blue) Does anyone know what these tubes were for? I think one might be a radio/microphone (of the silver cylinder on a handle type) as Scott always seemed to produce one from somewhere (like in "The Uninvited"). Des anyone know for sure?

The books refer to different colored interchangeable barrels for their guns. One was stun gas, one was needle darts, one was explosive shells.

Yep, interchangeable cartridges for the guns. Takara's 'Microman' Scott and Virgil Tracy figures have them as an advertised feature. Although in 'The Perils of Penelope', the guns are seen with no cartridges fitted, exposing the bare 'flash bulb' bits underneath, making it appear to be some kind of laser weapon (though they leave bullet holes), and the bad guy has his own IR sidearm, somehow....I assume that's just a huge continuity error.

The guns were only ever seen with the red cartridges fitted, and given that they left distinct 'bullet holes' I had always assumed that red was 'Live Ammunition', and that the other two were maybe blanks and rubber bullets. I like the above explanation from the books though, maybe the 'explosive shells' are my 'live ammunition'. The books are very well regarded, and considered by a lot of fans to be canon, given the author's (John Theydon) attention to detail and referencing events in the series. ShadowVsScientology (talk) 06:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Thunderbirds FAB production
Was hugely successful and ran for several years, going from an Edinburgh Festival skit by two fans to eventually ending up with a sold-out run in London's West End. An expanded description and explanation of their production and its success would be in order (maybe their own page? - many lesser theatricals get theirs) but if nothing else they deserve here at least an acknowledgement for their outstanding contribution to the demand which lead to the resurrection of Thunderbirds on the BBC in the early 1990s - which saw both its cult status secured as well its continuing popular appeal to a new generation of viewers. Plutonium27 (talk) 00:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

In Thunderbirds FAB- The Next Generation, my dad was dragged up on stage by Captain Black as a Mysteron hostage. True story. One of his claims to fame (the other being the time he had to shove an intoxicated Gareth 'Blake' Thomas out of the way in a pub.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ShadowVsScientology (talk • contribs) 06:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

"The Barry Gray Centenary Concert"
I have removed the following outdated advert from the Music section:

The Barry Gray Centenary Concert - Saturday 8th November 2008, an evening event at The Royal Festival Hall, The South bank, London. Ralph Titterton, restorer of the Barry Gray archive, co-producer of the Barry Gray original soundtrack CDs, and Cathy Ford, Barry Gray librarian, researcher and biographer, have joined with composer, conductor and arranger François Evans to produce a concert to celebrate the centenary of Barry Gray’s birth. A percentage of net proceeds will be donated to The Cinema and Television Benevolent Fundcharity no. 1099660. Bigger digger (talk) 14:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup, good call, although actually I'm wishing I could have gone to that now! Bob talk 14:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Turbocharged Thunderbirds
I noticed a mention of Turbocharged Thunderbirds in the Modernisation section of the article. I've been to several TV and movie websites and I can't find anything about it. There isn't even any mention of it on any of the Gerry Anderson sites. Did the person who added this just make it up? User:Crablogger 09:05 GMT, 23 April 2009
 * I've not seen it, but a google search for Turbocharged Thunderbirds seems to suggest it existed. I imagine the lack of mention on Gerry Anderson sites is because it sounds like an abomination! Bob talk 10:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It would also perhaps explain why the mention here needs so many citations. Because nobody is willing to discuss it on the internet, so there is practically no solid information beyond a few rants by upset fans. User:Crablogger 06:15 GMT, 24 April 2009

There is now a video on YouTube of the series lousy version of "Martian Invasion". What I'm wondering is if it would be noteworthy of putting down the voice actors for the characters on these series? What I caught in the end credits is...


 * Efrem Zimbalist, Jr. - Jeff Tracy
 * Glynis Barber - Lady Penelope
 * David Naughton - Scott & Virgil Tracy
 * Dan Castellaneta - Alan Tracy
 * Malachi Throne - The Hood

-

Possible revival (2005-present)
I've just tidied up a couple of little slips in the text, but I can't fix this sentence because I'm not sure what it was originally intended to say. Be great if someone could sort this out: "It will be in CGI, as opposed to puppetry, and because of Anderson's involvement as opposed to that of outside filmmakers." Warraqeen (talk) 08:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Protected ?
Why can I not edit this article? There is no protection symbol or log 85.234.197.111 (talk) 17:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm, weird. There is no history of protection on the logs, and I could edit it fine when I tried as an IP. Your IP has never been blocked, so it might just be something strange happening at the time you tried. Try again now, perhaps? Bob talk 17:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is OK now. I have the edit tab now. 85.234.197.111 (talk) 19:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

JR21 toys
I can't help but notice the merchandise section omits the JR21 toys, which I believe were defacto official merchandise.

As a kid who grew up in the '60s I remeber these as being the most sort after of the toys at the time - and when they come up on ebay they reach absurd prices. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.182.158.201 (talk) 05:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

NPOV
"Turbo-charged Thunderbirds" is very bad, yes, but Wikipedia is not a place for voicing such opinions except as part of an NPOV description.
 * That's as may be, but Gerry Anderson still wanted every episode burnt! Lee M 23:42, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, that's good information, and in fact if anyone has actual quotes from him on the matter I'd like to see those replace the description that he was "reportedly furious". ISTR that previously, instead of saying "many fans were disgusted by TCTB and Gerry was reportedly furious" the description went further and directly declared the show to be a piece of ****.  Which, y'know, I can't argue with the sentiment, cause it was, but it shouldn't be asserted as fact in the article.  -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:41, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * It kinda sums up the whole feel of the article - even 7 years after the above comments. Some good information, but some heavy peacock / weasel wording in places, and heavily POV. It would be fine on a fan site, but for something as neutral as Wikipedia, it really needs working on. Jay Firestorm (talk) 12:23, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

Discussion closed. The Rfd discussion can resolve the issue. No reason to have two related discussions open at once. Also it appears that consensus at the RfD is against this proposal. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thunderbirds (TV series) → Thunderbirds – per the evidence presented in the discussion at Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 May 27, the TV series is the primary topic for the title "Thunderbirds" and so the disambiguator is not needed. Thryduulf (talk) 19:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy procedural close Open RfD discussion. The RfD should be closed first. 184.144.166.87 (talk) 06:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This was opened specifically to find a resolution for the RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 11:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Funding
International Rescue is a private organisation and the characters sometimes refer to being "back in business" (or so I remember). Operating such an organisation (which includes a space station and global network of agents) can't be cheap.

Does anyone know how they got funding? Is it explained in the series? Thanks. 155.198.134.185 15:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I am sure it was stated that Jeff Tracy funded it - his article describes him as financier - but I am not sure if it was explained where he got his money. -- Beardo 03:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * From what I remember, Jeff Tracy was a multimillionaire who owned several large technology companies across the world which not only provided the funding for the organisation but were secretly involved in the construction of the Thunderbirds machines. These companies were managed by IR agents who were trusted friends of Jeff. I'm not sure if this was mentioned in the series but I think it was in the comic books which were edited by Alan Fennell, one of the series writers. Bobfos 11:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there was an entire strip which explained the backstory. FYI, Thunderbird 3 was modelled on Jeff's astronaut father's own rocket (and the strip showed young Jeff playing with a model of it!)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by ShadowVsScientology (talk • contribs) 05:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The series does mention that when Thunderbird 2 was damaged replacement parts were ordered from different companies so none of them would know what they were ultimately for. Lee M (talk) 11:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * FYI, the anonymous/secret manufacturer of equipment concept was carried through into Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons where the company making Spectrum's aircraft and vehicles was called International Engineering and was based in Switzerland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 19:09, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Thunderbird 6
I see that all of the vehicles are listed but what about Thunderbird 6, the bi-plane. It did make its debut in the second movie, but is it considered canon? Did it appear in the series? Evilgidgit 18:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The tiger moth didn't appear in the series, but I don't see why TB6 wouldn't be considered canon. The only problem I can see is that spoiler tags might have to placed around the Thunderbirds fleet section for anyone who hasn't seen the film, which might not be ideal.

Bobfos 18:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thunderbird 6 is canon, and to be honest I wouldn't worry about spoiler tags on a forty year old puppet movie!

FYI, there was also a 'Thunderbird 7', although it is non canon. Imai, who did the Thunderbirds model kits, repackaged one of their kits (a missile-launching treaded vehicle) as Thunderbird 7, and apparently it was approved by whoever owned the rights to Thunderbirds at the time. The vehicle does fit in with they style of a lot of the 'canon' pod vehicles. Imai also did a kit of the 'Excadigger' from the TV21 strips. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ShadowVsScientology (talk • contribs) 05:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Aside from the Dinky Toys marketing of die cast models of Thunderbird 2, FAB 1, etc. there was a larger size plastic model of TB2 around at the time the series was originally on air, although I don't know who produced it. There were also friction-motored plastic toys of TB 1 and TB 3 although they may have been made by the same manufacturer as the TB 2 I mentioned. Dinky Toys must have had the UK deal with Anderson as they did die-cast models of vehicles/aircraft from several Anderson series - Thunderbirds, Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons, Joe 90, The Secret Service, UFO and Space: 1999. I think Stingray may have been a bit too early for TV tie-ins in the UK though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 19:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Homages/Parodies?
I'd like to see if the information on "Team America: World Police" could be folded into a more general section on homages to and parodies of Thunderbirds. Other examples would include MTV's Super Adventure Team and the "Power Kings" segments of Joel Hodgson's HBO special "The TV Wheel". -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:14, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Wallace and Gromit's A Close Shave also featured a brief homage to the Thunderbird launch sequences. Lee M 23:42, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"David Holliday (the original voice of Virgil in Series I) was the only real American cast in any voice role in the series; all the others were British or Australian."


 * This is directly contradicted by the statement that Shane Rimmer is Canadian. (Now corrected.) And I thought Matt Zimmerman was American, but IMDB doesn't confirm this. Anyone? Lee M 23:47, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Matt Zimmerman is also Canadian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 19:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

International Rescue aka International Rescue Committee does exist by the way... disambiguation may help

What is a "life-action model set"?
Anyone? I though I understood English, but now I'm not sure. Is is a maquette of the island with movable palm trees?89.168.186.10 (talk) 22:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * At a guess, I should think it refers to a toy set based on the re-imagined Thunderbird vehicles in the awful 2004 live action film Thunderbirds (which had 'live' actors instead of puppets). Bob talk 22:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Electromagnetic pulse in fiction and popular culture
Back in the 1960s there was an episode in which either Thunderbird 1 or 2 (I forget which) unleashed an electromagnetic pulse on the bad guy driving along below. The episode sticks in my mind especially because I was for a while an EMP test engineer and one of the senior staff said he had been inspired to work in electromagnetics by that very episode. I had forgotten it until I saw it again with my kids (honest!) during a rerun of the series. Anyway, does anybody know the episode so we can add it to the article on electromagnetic pulse in fiction and popular culture? It must predate the earliest example noted there by some fifteen years or so, grin. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:11, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * It's "Terror in New York City" – replied over at Talk:Electromagnetic pulse in fiction and popular culture.  Super Mario  Man  08:20, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Thunderbirds reference in Father Ted.
There's an episode of Father Ted ("Think Fast, Father Ted" I think) where Dougal responds to something Ted says by saying, "Thunderbirds are go, Ted." Would this be relevant to add in the 'References, parodies and imitations' section? Ultra Viole t Ligh t 10:22, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, UVL. Yes, it seems that there was indeed a reference in Father Ted. As it happens, I'm thinking of putting together some sources to support a brief discussion of "Thunderbirds Are Go" as a phrase, in a manner similar to "F.A.B." (in the lead section and "Plot summary"). A number of example allusions may come in useful. As time draws on, and this article grows larger and larger (200KB is a massive amount), I'm starting to wonder whether the "References, parodies and imitations" section should be broken off into a separate article, in the style of Thunderbirds merchandise. A Works based on Thunderbirds sub-article is probably something to consider as well.  Super Mario  Man  02:12, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, I reckon that'd be good to discuss those phrases as they are popular (not forgetting Parker's "Yes m'lady" of course) – my source that they're popular is from Mum when she was at school so we won't be able to use that haha :P If you look at other featured TV series like Only Fools and Horses or Firefly they're not nearly as big as this article but then again, Thunderbirds is significant in British television, sci-fi and children's TV. All the info presented is relevant which presents a problem for the article's size and I'm far too new a user to decide what would be an appropriate action would be. Ultra Viole t Ligh t  16:16, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the general method for getting rid of what the FA reviewers would describe as excessive unreferenced "cruft" is to farm it off into a separate article called something like "Thunderbirds in popular culture" and then writing a much shorter referenced paragraph about general cultural impact in the main article. Eventually the "popular culture" article will probably be deleted, but it saves a good article such as the one this has become recently from being a magnet for half-remembered lines from other TV shows. Bob talk 20:02, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


 * N'aw OK, thanks for the info :)  Ultra Viole t Ligh t  21:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Now that I've re-arranged the sections, I think that the answer is to create Works based on Thunderbirds (as a straightforward copy of the "TV adaptations and revival attempts" section, and possibly "Film sequels and adaptations" as well) and include "References, parodies and imitations" there on the basis that many of the examples cited are artistic works (e.g. Team America), while even the non-works (e.g. the International Rescue Corps) are still very much inspired by Thunderbirds even if they are not, being non-works, based on it. I too have concerns regarding the lifespan of any Thunderbirds in popular culture article. Moving the bulk of the last three sections to an article of their own and re-writing the remainder in summary style would cut the main article's size by at least a third.  Super Mario  Man  06:43, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Brains' name
From my memories when growing up with the original series and books, I recall this to be Hiram Hackenbacker.

85.210.33.201 (talk) 05:31, 9 May 2014 (UTC) Yusef M. 08/05/2014

Brains' name
From my memories when growing up with the original series and books, I recall this to be Hiram Hackenbacker.

85.210.33.201 (talk) 05:31, 9 May 2014 (UTC) Yusef M. 08/05/2014


 * Hackenbacker. was just an alias that Brains used in the episode "Alias Mr Hackenbacker".. RJ4 (talk) 15:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Thunderbirds Questions
I cannot find a way to contact AP Films/Supermarionation films about these questions, so I ask them here.

1: How exactly did the Supermarionation crew control FAB 1's grille machine gun (e.g., how they got it to fire, how they moved it through the grille etc).

2: After Thunderbird 2 passes the palm trees, it stops atop its launch ramp. How did the Supermarionation crew get the ramp to raise?

3: In Thunderbirds Are Go!, how exactly did the Zero X hangar door slide underground?

4: In Thunderbirds Are Go!, how exactly did the Supermarionation crew get the "retros" to fire at the front of Zero-X's MEV on re-entry?

151.226.204.176 (talk) 17:20, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Like all the Gerry Anderson series, they were entertainment for youngsters and you weren't supposed to look at the details too closely (or you would find lots of faults).(84.236.152.71 (talk) 21:22, 31 July 2014 (UTC))

Can we get an article on 16:9 cropping?
"this release has come under fire for cropping the episodes into a 16:9 aspect ratio, so as to better fit widescreen television sets"
 * To forestall accusations of weasel words some examples should be cited. However, it's a fact that the same thing has happened to The World at War on Blu-Ray, and potential pre-buyers on Amazon have been extremely negative in response. I believe there should be an article on the issue of cropping, as it's a form of tampering to my mind no less damaging to the original material than artificial stereo or brickwall compression is to music, or colorization to film and TV. Lee M (talk) 15:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I quite agree - to a point, it's similar to old pan and scaning - perhaps you could add a section on there? Bob talk 20:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * IIRC, the problem goes back to the 1980s when TV companies started cropping some feature films rather than using the 'letterbox' style of format. This was due to the companies receiving many complaints from viewers that 'half the picture's missing' - an early symptom of the plummeting intelligence of the average TV viewer and possibly one of the justifying reasons for the subsequent dumbing down of UK television.


 * This 'dumbing down' wasn't just restricted to the audience. In around 2000, Meridian broadcast after News at Ten an edited version of Aliens and the thoughtful editor who had been required to edit it to fit into the schedule had so butchered the film that large parts of the story were missing such that if you had never seen the film before the storyline must have been quite puzzling, if not positively enigmatic.


 * As for current UK TV, I think one of the reasons that older TV programmes such as Thunderbirds and Captain Scarlet are so popular is that, compared to the current TV shows made in the last ten or fifteen years or so, the above Gerry Anderson programmes have obviously had more effort expended on them, and the acting is actually somewhat better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.215.129 (talk) 20:37, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Verba books
It's great to see Thunderbirds on the main page for the 50th anniversary, but how come there is no mention in the article of the novels by Joan Marie Verba? 99.236.125.203 (talk) 01:26, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect "Supermarionation" definition
The first paragraph of the article contains the following sentence: "It was produced between 1964 and 1966 using a combination of marionette puppetry and scale-model special effects sequences – a hybrid filming technique known as "Supermarionation"." Every other explanation I've read or heard since the 1960s has specifically stated that "Supermarionation" referred solely to the solenoid mechanism which synchronised the voice actors' speech with the puppets' lip movements - as described in Wikipedia's own article "Supermarionation". While it's reasonable to include similar innovative techniques used in the puppets under that umbrella, the author has completely mislead readers by extending the definition to include the non-marionette special effects model sequences. I sincerely hope that sentence will be clarified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1956Firebird (talk • contribs) 23:42, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Meaning of FAB
An anonymous editor just added an apparent meaning for the phrase FAB. While it makes sense, I have no recollection of it ever actually being spelled out like this. Can anyone verify the new information or at least provide a source? Sounds like something that might have originated with one of the Century 21 publications. 23skidoo 16:49, 5 August 2005 (UTC)


 * As I understand it, the letters "F.A.B." were originally chosen simply because the slang word "fab", short for fabulous, was trendy at the time. It was only later that a more technical meaning was given. RJ4 (talk) 05:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Somebody sourced this to IMDb trivia for the series. IMDb consists of user-entered information and is therefore not a reliable resource, so I removed the citation and put a "citation needed" tag on this paragraph. Primogen (talk) 20:27, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Your informants are correct. "Fab" (short for "Fabulous") was a trendy word in the Swinging 60s which was then used as a code phrase acronym in Thunderbirds. A big question for fans at the time was what did F.A.B. mean? I remember reading an explanation in one of the Thunderbirds annuals at the time. Unfortunately, I can't recall which of those annuals it appeared in or what the explanation was - except that it was something very obvious.

1956Firebird (talk) 23:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Thunderbirds (2015) board game &c
A Thunderbirds board game was released in 2015 (for the 50th anniversary) and has several expansions in process. BoardGameGeek (BGG) has information on it. Main game page: https://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/160610/thunderbirds Note: While the description and more information sections are essentially wiki pages, the information section is moderated by BGG administrators and is not free for anyone to edit.

Authoritative news reports of the game and its expansions are here:

https://www.boardgamegeek.com/blogpost/30973/matt-leacock-becomes-brains-behind-thunderbirds-20

https://www.boardgamegeek.com/blogpost/38707/new-game-round-lehmann-courts-power-favor-pharaoh

https://www.boardgamegeek.com/blogpost/39487/crowdfunding-round-blood-rage-thunderbirds-between

https://www.boardgamegeek.com/blogpost/40313/game-preview-thunderbirds-or-its-another-matt-leac

https://www.boardgamegeek.com/blogpost/45347/gen-con-2015-xviii-thunderbirds-pocket-imperium-wa

https://www.boardgamegeek.com/blogpost/45775/crowdfunding-round-dollars-coins-checks-mechs-cool

https://www.boardgamegeek.com/blogpost/51816/new-game-round-get-clowns-dirty-welcome-more-thund

Alternatively, if this link works, it will put all of the above on one giant page; search for Thunderbirds; in reverse chronological order:

https://www.boardgamegeek.com/geeksearch.php?action=search&objecttype=blogpost&objectid=1&q=Thunderbirds

Note: This blog is https://www.boardgamegeek.com/blog/1 BGG's official news blog, run by a paid journalist, Mr. Martin. While the blog functionality has been released to all and sundry, this blog is as authoritative as it gets. (Which is not to say mistake-free.)

I do not intend to edit this material into the article, being an American. Thunderbirds is a British cultural treasure. Also, I hope someone will know and be able to integrate what else is happening for Thunderbirds' 50th anniversary, such as:

http://www.express.co.uk/showbiz/tv-radio/594821/Thunderbirds-1965-50th-anniversary-Kickstarter-Gerry-Anderson

I'm very sorry to hear of the passing of Sylvia Anderson.

[This was intended to be a top level entry, and I'm unsure how to fix this. Help?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laguna CA (talk • contribs) 11:27, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Revisit of “Supermarionation”
There is ample, reliable, and common sense evidence that the meaning of “Supermarionation” is hyperbole that most simply translates to “dramatic” (rather than “marionettes’ mouths well synchronized with voiceover”) and was just marketing spin by the creator of the show as he tried in vain to garner greater worldwide syndication. It’s clear the creator used the term “Supermarionation,” along with the ultra-dramatic font treatment in the shows’ opening sequence, as branding intended to convey an air that ‘Thunderbirds’ wasn’t a traditional kids’-stuff marionette Saturday morning show.

As Gerry Anderson, the co-producer along with his wife, stated two years before he died, as memorialized by ‘Spy Hollywood‘ in Remembering Gerry Anderson, known as the British Walt Disney, So what was Supermarionation? It was a marketing term but people took it seriously Anderson once said.

It seems that common sense suffices perfectly well here. The opening credits of ‘Thunderbirds’ (YouTube link here) make it sufficiently clear that Anderson didn’t shy away of using hyperbole while marketing his show. For instance, note that Anderson chose to use color film in 1964, roughly two years before color TV became ubiquitous—in America, anyway. To hype his color production, Anderson coined the term “VIDECOLOR,” (pre-queued point in YouTube), which he apparently didn’t bother to trademark. The term merely meant “color TV.”

In a similar fashion, only six seconds later (pre-queued point in YouTube), the follow-on “SUPERMARIONATION” branding appears atop a sequence of pyrotechnic special effects. Anderson’s objective is sufficiently clear and one need only apply the “grin test” on the meaning of it (in addition to the above-mentioned quote from Anderson reflecting on his legacy): his “Supermarionation” branding was intended to convey a connotation that might best be described as “New, Dramatic, and Sophisticated Non-Kids’-Stuff.”

If “Supermarionation” really meant “marionettes’ mouths well synchronized with voiceover,” the “Supermarionation” branding in the show’s opening sequence would have been splashed atop a marionette speaking.” This obvious non-use of the term is obivously significant.

We wikipedians ought not overlook the clear implications of the above-mentioned quote from Anderscon, as well as the only common-sense interpretation of the definition of the term (how “SUPERMARIONATION” was used to convey “dramatic” in the shows’ opening sequence). Anderson’s assertions in 1964 and 1965 as regards what “Supermarionation” meant were clearly marketing spin intended to draw added attention to a technical innovation of Anderson’s production company: the use of solenoid-actuated lip movement.

In reality, as Anderson, reflecting upon his legacy near the end of his life, said, “It was a marketing term but people took it seriously.” Greg L (talk) 02:55, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Strike a deal in the middle.
Can we say something like "either 2026 or 2065"? So we can meet in the middle and compromise.2.96.102.189 (talk) 16:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)


 * The article already compromises by stating the minority view in this footnote. Since there are more (reliable) sources saying 2060s than 2020s, that is what the main body of the article says. Putting the two settings side by side in the main body as if they were equally valid is not in keeping with the NPOV policy at WP:DUE, which states that "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject." Since the only reliable source saying 2020s seems to be the 1992 Marriott book, 2020s is a minority view that should not be reported on the same level as 2060s. If you can find other reliable sources (not fan sites like this) which say 2020s, feel free to list them here. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 23:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)


 * How much of a bigger source do you want than this?https://securityhazard.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/giveortakeamillion01194.jpg It's from the ORIGINAL SHOW!Barrow1965 (talk) 07:32, 25 May 2021 (UTC)


 * In "The Mighty Atom" and a couple of other episodes, there's a shot of a newspaper dated 1964. In "30 Minutes After Noon", there's a date on a wall saying 2005 and a shot of a newspaper from 2007. Should we put all of these dates in the article too, alongside 2026? Somehow, I don't think the events of the series span 60-odd years and I don't think "30 Minutes After Noon" is set in 2005 and 2007 simultaneously... If only there were some Wikipedia policies that could guide us in situations like this – when we have a load of primary-source screenshots of random production errors contradicting each other and it isn't clear which we should use... Oh, wait, there are – WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY, which tell us not to make interpretations of primary sources but rather to report what secondary sources say. Which is what this article does. Problem solved! SuperMarioMan (Talk) 20:54, 25 May 2021 (UTC)


 * But 2026 is the most OBVIOUS one!Barrow1965 (talk) 06:45, 26 May 2021 (UTC)


 * In your opinion. The policy is clear. Super</b><b style="color: #FF3F00;">Mario</b><b style="color: #FF6F00;">Man</b> (Talk) 19:17, 26 May 2021 (UTC)


 * What I mean is, is that, 1. 2026 is the most clear date you see. 2. Out of every date that you DO see in the show, it is the most furthest in the future.Barrow1965 (talk) 07:27, 27 May 2021 (UTC)


 * 2026 appears once, in the very last episode; to assume that all of the episodes are set in that year is original research. Why not 2021 or 2023 or 2025? Why not 1964, given that's the only year that crops up more than once? But all of this is neither here nor there, and quite aside from the fact that we have multiple members of the production team dismissing the calendar as nothing more than a weird production mistake and saying that the series was definitely meant to be set in the 2060s. Which of the various on-screen dates is "most obvious" to you is irrelevant – what matters here are the secondary sources, and the consensus of those sources is clear: the series is set in 2065 to 2067. You are free to believe what you want, but until you present some reliable secondary sources to back it up there is no encyclopaedic basis for changing the article. <b style="color: #FF0F00;">Super</b><b style="color: #FF3F00;">Mario</b><b style="color: #FF6F00;">Man</b> (Talk) 22:20, 27 May 2021 (UTC)


 * But we also have this. https://securityhazard.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/pdvd_097.jpg Also, to agree with all of them, we say "Set in the 21st century." That's the best way.Barrow1965 (talk) 08:23, 29 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Also, If Thunderbirds is set in the 2060's, then how come the human race of Fireball XL5 have established bases and space stations throughout the universe, but never thought to go to mars until the first Thunderbirds film? They go to mars in 2027 and have a bases throughout the universe by 2062. Also, Thunderbirds doesn't feel as futuristic and far fetched as Fireball XL5, Stingray and Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons.Barrow1965 (talk) 14:10, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you have evidence they're the same setting? <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 13:13, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

The date
I'm not happy with it. I want to come to some sort of a deal where we can meet in the middle.Barrow1965 (talk) 07:23, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Since it's all over the place, I think it should just be removed and a generic "in the near future" used instead. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 13:15, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Sci-fi is not a proper word
I have removed two instances of the word "sci-fi" from the article on the grounds that it is a slang term and not a real word at all. Lee M 02:23, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Good luck convincing others of that. Slang terms are "real words" and one such as "sci-fi" has come into popular usage, albeit against the wishes of Isaac Asimov. The only difference here is whether the term is properly applied. It's used all over the place in Wikipedia so if you want to see it eradicated, I suggest you visit the Village Pump and plead your case. 23skidoo 03:43, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Would you like to go back to Hugo Gernsback original coinage: scientifiction?89.168.186.10 (talk) 21:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Asimov was mentioned, so I can add something to that conversation. . . almost 20 years later.

"Sci-fi" was once reserved for movies, television, and video games. "SF" was for science fiction novels and short stories. The practice made it through the 1900s and well into the 2000s, but now it's all referred to as "sci-fi" or "scifi" and even "science fiction" is becoming rarer and "SF" is almost nonexistent now. It really is rare to see "SF" used in current writings.

You can find it in various older how-to books about writing science fiction stories. In books by Card, Bova, and some others, they're adamant about using "SF" when referring to novels and short stories. It's because "SF" is *respectable* and "sci-fi" isn't. That's their argument: one is serious fiction and the other is not.

(In a way, it's kind of funny. Although attitudes toward genre fiction are slowly changing, the majority of non-genre fiction writers and literary critics despise genre fiction. Some of them hate it with a passion and when an author crosses into genres from literature they say the author is just wasting time and talent, and they often make a case for/justify the early genre oriented work of authors who go from writing genre fiction to writing literature, so to these people there was never a difference between SF and sci-fi, because to them it's all garbage.) IIIIsongIIII (talk) 20:08, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Nebula-75?
Just wondering what folks thought about including a link to Nebula-75 somewhere in the article. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 21:53, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Time setting
To my understanding, originally Thunderbirds was supposed to take place in "the near future", but a decision was made late in production to place the year as 2064 (one hundred years from the then-present) instead. Where in the series is it stated to be 2026, as SpaceCaptain claims? -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:30, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't recall an actual year mentioned at any point, including 2064. Which episode mentions this? The only year I recall hearing is in one episode Parker gets drunk of a bottle of wine of 1998 vintage. If my memory serves, the Century 21 timeline that established Stingray, Thunderbirds, Captain Scarlet and Fireball XL5 as all occurring in the same universe placed Captain Scarlet somewhere in the 2060s with Thunderbirds listed as taking place some decades earlier. Maybe that's the source for the 2026 date? Even though it was "official" I've never heard a definitive call as to whether the Century 21 timeline is canon or not. 23skidoo 15:22, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't remember them mentioning years at all in the canon, though I could easily have missed that. However, when TechTV ran the series, they ran it with a informational band at the bottom of the screen where they'd tell tidbits about the special effects, the behind-the-scenes -- sort of a commentary track.  On the very first episode, they mentioned that the setting was intended to be the near future until quite close to production and then was changed to production + 100 years.  It's not impossible that they could have been misinformed, but I think I put more trust in them than in the Century 21 timeline, which had to try and fit four different series that had each been produced as their own series into a single coherent timeline.  -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:51, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Watch the final episode, Give or Take a Million (the Christmas special). A calendar is seen (close-up) that reads DECEMBER 24 2026. SpaceCaptain 00:32, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There is also a newspaper in the show ('The Mighty Atom' IIRC) which has the year '1964'- printed materials on-screen were never reliable. ShadowVsScientology (talk) 05:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yeah... there is one place where the 2026 date survived the retcon. Thunderbirds Are Go (the behind-the-scenes book from the early 90s, not the old movie novelization) uses 2026. Gerry Anderson has stated this was an error and denies that it was ever intended differently. I think the move for the redating came from TV Century 21, so they could do crossovers between Thunderbirds, Stingray, Fireball XL5 and Captain Scarlet. Unlike Star Wars or Star Trek, the Supermarionation universe (if, indeed, the shows are all in the same universe - I don't think Fireball XL5 is, at least) doesn't have a canon policy. SpaceCaptain 00:42, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah, that explains it -- I still haven't gotten a chance to watch that episode (my VCR blew up shortly before it would have shown up on TechTV's schedule...) -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:52, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I had a feeling the 2020s date was mentioned in "Ricochet", too. The Zero-X article says that the film was set in 2065 - but that feels like part of the retcon to me, put in once the date for Captain Scarlet was fixed. -- Beardo 05:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

As a long time fan, I thought I'd wade in here. 2064. The show was in production in '64, and was supposed to be 100 years in the future. Also, I own the Atari ST version of the Thunderbirds game by Grandslam, the instruction manual dates it as 2064. Not conclusive I know, but here are some other things I worked out, whilst trying to come up with a 'Zero-X mission' timeline:

The first episode of Captain Scarlet gives the date as '2068'; it features the Zero-X MEV on Mars. In the Zero-X section of Graham Bleathman's 'Supermarionation Cross Sections' book (which is licenced and researched), it states that the Capatin Scarlet version is the 'Mark 4', ie the fourth Zero-X. In Thunderbirds Are Go, we see the first two, so the identification of the Captain Scarlet version as the fourth is presumably to allow some space for the TV21 comic strip 'Zero-X' to be 'canon' (that would be the third version). SO, the fourth Zero-X mission is dated as 2068. We know also from Thunderbirds are Go that it takes TWO years for Earth to be in the correct orbital position for a trip to Mars (the TV21 strip's opening story features another Mars run), therefore:

Captain Scarlet ZX Mission (4)- 2068

TV21 ZX Mission (3)- 2066

Thunderbirds Are Go ZX Mission 2 (2)- 2064

Thunderbirds are Go ZX MIssion 1 (1)- 2062 (before IR began operations, which is sort of implied since they are not mentioned at at all when the first Zero-X went out of control; 'The Mighty Atom' featured events which took place a year before IR began operating thus setting a precedent).

Also, 'Thunderbird 6' has to be the last in the sequence of events for Thunderbirds, since FAB1 is still in Skyship One's hold when it is destroyed, therefore FAB1 must have been destroyed along with it. Everything preceding that has FAB1 in it.

As for inter-show continuity, as far as I can see there are TWO seperate continuities.

Captain Scarlet features Zero-X, which was in Thunderbirds are Go; Gordon Tracy trained with WASP which is from Stingray; WASP was a division of World Security Patrol, as was World Space Patrol which operated Fireball XL-5. 'Supermarionation Cross-Sections' officially links all these shows, as well as Joe 90 (and some sources suggest that Lady Penelope worked for the World Intelligence Network before joining IR).

THEN it appears that Gerry re-set his timeline for the live action shows (Thunderbirds claimed Jeff Tracy was one of the first men to walk on the Moon; the Moon landings had not occured at that point); UFO is set in 1980, as per the opening credits, then Space: 1999 is set in, er, 1999. Some sources claim that the Hawk fighters in Space: 1999 were the direct replacements for SHADO's Interceptors.

Anything not covered in these two timelines is 'non canon' (though I'd like to think that Supercar exists in the Fireball-Captain Scarlet timeline). ShadowVsScientology (talk) 05:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Saying that it's set in the 2060s is absolutely some retcon at work - although the moon landings had not happened when the show was made, US President Kennedy had pledged it would happen by 1970 in 1962 (We choose to go to the Moon) and there is absolutely no way that a big tech show like this ever believed that would not be achieved. So even in 1964 when the first scripts were written, the writers knew that in order for Jeff to be one of the first men on the moon, he would have had to do that in the early 1970s. Either Jeff is a very very young looking 120+ year old (fertile enough to have so many sons in his 90s!) or Anderson changed his mind about the date much, much later. We know there's a 2026 calendar shown in the last episode, but does the newspaper shown in the first episode have a date visible in the Blu-ray version? Lovingboth (talk) 22:56, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

''' TBH, I always asssumed that the dates were (Date of production) plus one hundred years. A couple of inconsistencies aside, this seems to cover everything on the whole.''' However, as I type this I am going through my recently accquired 'Joe 90' boxset, and in the episode 'Arctic Adventure', Professor McClaine can be seen reading THE newspaper from the Thunderbirds episode 'Edge of Impact', with its headline ('RED ARROW TEST FLIGHT TRAGEDY- Colonel Casey to be replaced') in full view of the camera. If it's deliberate, then events in Joe 90 occur at the same time as those in Thunderbirds. However, it is my belief that this is purely unintentional and a result of the very obvious prop recycling that occurs in Joe 90. In the episode 'Most Special Astronaut', you can see both the VGR Rocket Destruct panel from the Captain Scarlet episode 'Renegade Rocket' (with the code word 'ZERO' still on its display) AND one of the Zero-X lifting body hangars, complete with Lifting Body actually docked there! The Legendary Shadow! (talk) 02:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

2065-2066
Controversy? As a kid when the series originally aired, much of the merchandise- children's annuals et al- associated with the series indicated that Thunderbirds, Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons, Stingray et al were all set about one century or so beyond the present day.

User: Calibanu 16.58, 04 May 2007


 * I am sure that there are references in the series indicating a date of 2028 or thereabouts. The 2065 dates came from TV Century 21 which pretended to be a newspaper reporting events, and also to allow cross-overs. That date was probably a retcon, though Captain Scarlet was officially set in 206x. -- Beardo 03:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * IIRC, the Century 21 series were set one hundred years from the year of writing/filming, although in the case of UFO it was set in 1980. So Thunderbirds would have been set around 2065-66. The comic was so-named because its stories, like the TV series', were set (not surprisingly) in the twenty-first century. — Preceding [[User:Beardo|Beardo (talk) 03:24, 18 June 2021 (UTC)unsigned]] comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 19:18, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Joe 90 was set in 2012-2013, The Secret Service set in 1969, UFO 1980, Captain Scarlet 2068 and Thunderbirds 2026 Because it is there in the episode.2.96.102.189 (talk) 16:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)


 * As far as I am aware, the 2026 date only appeared in some props which Gerry Anderson later said were production mistakes - see the footnote. The films show newspapers with dates in the 2060s. -- Beardo (talk) 03:24, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * See above: saying that it's set in the 2060s is absolutely some retcon at work - although the moon landings had not happened when the show was made, US President Kennedy had pledged it would happen by 1970 in 1962 (We choose to go to the Moon) and there is absolutely no way that a big tech show like this ever believed that would not be achieved. So even in 1964 when the first scripts were written, the writers knew that in order for Jeff to be one of the first men on the moon, he would have had to do that in the early 1970s. Either Jeff is a very very young looking 120+ year old (fertile enough to have so many sons in his 90s!) or Anderson changed his mind about the date much, much later. We know there's a 2026 calendar shown in the last episode, but does the newspaper shown in the first episode have a date visible in the Blu-ray version? Lovingboth (talk) 23:00, 9 September 2023 (UTC)