Talk:Thunderbirds Are Go

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)

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

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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

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 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)

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)

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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080203190221/http://www.technodelic.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Upload01/ZeroXPt1.htm to http://www.technodelic.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Upload01/ZeroXPt1.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080204143112/http://www.technodelic.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Upload03/ZeroXPt2.htm to http://www.technodelic.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Upload03/ZeroXPt2.htm
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/5oy436fWh?url=http://www.joblo.com/dvdclinic/dvd_review.php?id=542 to http://www.joblo.com/dvdclinic/dvd_review.php?id=542

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:35, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

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)