Talk:Thunderbirds Are Go (TV series)

Television 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.

Science Fiction Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

New Sections Needed

I believe this article deserves to include a few sections into:

Production - Info on how each episode is done, if information can be found to be added in.
Comparison - Info on comparing the revamp/remake to the original series, such as possibly two images of Thunderbird 1, one from the original, one from the revamp/remake.
Commisioning the Series - Info on the effort put forward to getting this show made from the original. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GUtt01 (talk • contribs) 02:00, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Music

I'd love to learn more about the opening and closing themes and incidental music. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evanwolf (talk • contribs) 06:29, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the main theme is the pretty much the same with a few bars of Gladiator thrown in.137.205.183.70 (talk) 15:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Live action model sets"?

I'll maybe dig a bit deeper, but from what I've seen of this series it's pure CGI designed/rendered as if live action modelling, in sections (e.g. false depth of field/defocussing, "convey-belt" scenery, etc), in order to give the general feeling of the original Supermarionation series. If it's CGI rendered over model sets (or isolated models emplaced within an otherwise CGI environment), it's melded rather well. I'm almost tempted to put a Citation Needed on that the information that it's a combination of CGI and LAMS, but first I need to make sure it isn't mentioned elsewhere in the links. 213.205.253.85 (talk) 20:45, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't get access to the full citation of the 'Making Of' documnetary featuring Reggie Yates, but it definately showed Weta Workshop filming the minature sets that were later overlaid by CGI. In fact he helps in one scene where a spaceship takes off. Pendleboater (talk) 06:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Episodes being aired out of order?

If you look at the Radio Times episode listing, they've got "Tunnels of Time" listed as episode 4, and "Skyhook" as episode 10; they are, respectively, 10 and 11 on here. Are ITV showing the episodes out of order, for some reason? AnselaJonla (talk) 17:09, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On ITV Player, they have the episodes (from Fireflash) listed as: Episode 4 - Fireflash Episode 5 - Unplugged Episode 6 - Runaway Episode 7 - EOS Episode 8 - Slingshot Episode 9 - Tunnels of Time This is most likely due to them treating both parts of Ring of Fire as a single episode and not two separate episodes. On Digiguide however, they have Slingshot as Episode 9, and somehow, Tunnels of Time listed as Episode 10. This article also somehow, has episode 10 listed twice (both with today's air date), with the extra being listed after Episode 12 (but still retaining the "10" as the episode number. I'm starting to wonder if we're actually watching the correct episodes. I mean it isn't the first time ITV have messed up. Slow Train Through Africa with Griff Rhys Jones, anyone?--82.3.247.25 (talk) 18:23, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a separate page for episodes

Should we split the episode list into a different page?

I agree with this, as I am sure that episodes can have a separate page (GUtt01 (talk) 11:23, 30 September 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Created a Draft of a page to contain the Episode List, right here -> [[1]]. GUtt01 (talk) 08:06, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Normally this is not necessary until at least season 2. The entire article now is 39 kB. See WP:SIZESPLIT which recommends an article be considered for a split at 60 kB, 50% larger than it is now. And a lot of the current article, especially "Comparisons with the original series" is unsourced, violates WP:OR and would be deleted if reviewed by a less involved editor. 202.81.248.135 (talk) 07:37, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comparision Section - Too much info in it?

I just looked at the Comparison section to the Original Series, and I'm wondering if it contains a bit too much detail in it. Could that possibly be trimmed down a bit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GUtt01 (talk • contribs) 10:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are no sources for these observations, it is simply WP:OR. I deleted it. No doubt whoever made up all this stuff will restore it. 202.81.249.200 (talk) 01:36, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. It was restored without any justification or comment. Deleted it again. 202.81.249.72 (talk) 04:36, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Restored again with the comment "(simple observations are not the same thing as quotable research)". Correct. And thus not allowed, and so deleted again. See WP:OR: " "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." 202.81.248.27 (talk) 01:50, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See relevant section in "These are not original research":

Works of fiction and non-fiction

A book, short story, film, or other work of fiction is a primary source for any article or topic regarding that work. Anything that can be observed by a reasonable person simply by reading/watching the work itself, without interpretation, is not original research, but is reliance upon a primary source. This would include direct quotes or non-interpretative summaries, publication dates, and any other pertinent information that can be observed from the work. For example, if there are multiple versions of a particular story, and one version does not have a particular character, or has extra characters, that is clear simply by reading or watching the work. The fact that one would have to read or watch the whole thing does not make the matter original research. The work is verifiable, even if it takes more time than flipping to a single page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:These_are_not_original_research WatcherZero (talk) 22:08, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since you insisted on restoring this, it has, predictably grown and become an excuse for adding any trivial observation about the show. E.g. "Thunderbird 1 is raised, rather than lowered to launch position". Completely pointless useless trivia and a waste of space. Being "verifiable" does not make this dross notable. Well, let the article be 50% fanwank then, I give up. 202.81.248.226 (talk) 18:09, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Countdown Voice Artist

Question here: Should the voice artist for the Countdown Voice during the show's Title sequence and the scene where a Thunderbird(s) is taking off, be highlighted as "(deceased)"? GUtt01 (talk) 14:27, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Episode pages and plots

Could someone add more episode pages like comet chasers please — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpaterson-bl1 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DVD Releases

Can anybody find a source for the revision on 11 January 2017‎ by user "2001:bb6:1fd9:be00:949d:1e08:b683:2a6c" for the dates of DVD releases? I can't find any evidence of those anywhere. (NotARegister'dUser) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.247.21.65 (talk) 11:45, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Production

In this section it states "In total, it takes roughly a year to produce a single episode." This cannot be right as 54 have been produced in three years?? REVUpminster (talk) 15:35, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It can be fine; consider a "pipeline" which is a year long, made up of several stages which are a few weeks long and can be done in parallel. For example, while one episode's plot is being outlined, another is actually being scripted, another is being designed, another is having its models made... and so on. Each episode takes a year but several are being made simultaneously. DuncanCorps (talk) 15:59, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a year per episode, because if part of the team is working on different episodes, they're not putting all their resources into one episode. The team started work on the show in June 2013. If it took a year per episode, episode 6 of season 1 would be releasing this month. Clearly, since we're on Series 3, and there have been 64 episodes released in a space of 72 months, each episode takes the entire team just over a month to produce. Even if only a small part of the team works on each episode, to say it takes a year to produce a single episode is very misleading, if not completely false. Also, such a "parallel" production method would be grossly inefficient - they would need multiple sets of the same tools that are used in the making of each episode, so that each team could make their designated episode. It just doesn't make sense. Ianbrettcooper (talk) 12:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Recommendation for Article

Now that we got the show having about three series, is it possible for an editor to make arrangements for the episodes to be listed in a separate article?GUtt01 (talk) 17:21, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's been plenty of content in the programme which indicates unambiguously that it continues its 1960s predecessor; it's not a remake or reboot. I would like to change the page's content to comply with that. I can list some supporting evidence? DuncanCorps (talk) 15:28, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually... given dialogue hinting at characters' ages and how Season Three finishes, is it possible that this programme is actually a prequel of the 1960s original? There are some trivial, resolvable inconsistencies (instruct Brains to build new Thunderbirds with curvier designs, switch back to the retro uniforms seen in this programme, and so on...) but otherwise... it seems possible, and worth verifying. --DuncanCorps (talk) 16:16, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Airing?

Maybe aired on Megamax so I do not know? 2A02:2F04:A213:8B00:3C37:334F:D782:F439 (talk) 16:31, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh! this means they aired Arabic on MBC3, Czech on Megamax, Danish on DR Ultra, Dutch on NPO Zapp, Finnish on MTV Junior, French on Gulli and Canal J, German on KiKA or Super RTL, Greek on Smile TV or Star Channel, Hebrew on Arutz HaYeladim, Hungarian on Megamax, Italian on Rai Gulp, Japanese on NHK Educational, Korean on Tooniverse, Mandarin on CCTV-14 and PTS, Norwegian on NRK Super, Polish on TeleTOON+, Portuguese on Gloob and Biggs, Romanian on Megamax, Russian on 2x2 and STS, Spanish on Canal 5 and Clan TV, Swedish on SVT Barn, and Turkish on MinikaGO!? 2A02:2F04:A213:8B00:2802:86DD:E7DE:EA5B (talk) 10:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]