Page 1 of 1

Space: 2099.

Posted: Fri Feb 10, 2012 7:25 pm
by FZeroOne

Space: 2099.

Posted: Fri Feb 10, 2012 9:04 pm
by Crash
Wow! As long as they don't make it always about the kind of ... supernatural mumbo jumbo about crew members being possessed by aliens and developing superpowers and all that usual guff that show seemed to be about, that should be quite interesting.There was something really rather eerie and reminiscent of Lost in some of the episodes of that show.Distressingly, the UFO Movie seems to have taken a very unpleasant detour.I'm not sure who they could have casted to replace Ed Bishop as Cmdr. Straker but I'm sure you couldn't find anyone less appropriate than Jean-Claude Van Damme.

Space: 2099.

Posted: Sat Feb 11, 2012 4:41 pm
by FZeroOne
You're... joking? Thats a joke, right? You're not joking...? Oh, my.And there won't even be a Raul Julia to say things like "For you, Koenig, the day the Moon was blasted free of Earth was the worst day of your life. But for me... it was Tuesday."I am a bit worried about the iconic Eagle - its one of those designs you feel can only ever be ruined.




Space: 2099.

Posted: Sat Feb 11, 2012 8:36 pm
by Crash
It looks as though Jean-Claude is playing a "retired military advisor" in the movie, so not Cmdr Straker.Infact, according to the BBC, it's not a big part.I hope to God they don't mangle it like they did with Thunderbirds.I thought the revisions to the ships in Thunderbirds' 2004 movie were OK. One of the discarded concepts for Thunderbird 1 was brilliant; much better than the one they chose.A few minor refinements to the Eagle would be OK.

Space: 2099.

Posted: Sun Feb 12, 2012 9:16 pm
by FZeroOne
"Gentlemen, this is our new consultant on Kicking UFOs in the Face!".The Thunderbirds movie re-designs were pretty good, considering (though someone really should have paid Rolls-Royce whatever they wanted). The trouble with the Eagle is that its just about perfect as it is - well, if you discount the lack of lateral visibility and, as one of the model designers pointed out, fuel tanks...

Space: 2099.

Posted: Mon Feb 13, 2012 11:58 am
by Crash
Rolls-Royce have hated Thunderbirds since they made the actual, life-size pink Rolls-Royce itself.They've tried many times to buy that vehicle in order to destroy it, to purify the badge image or some such drivel.I doubt you could have paid them anything to allow the use of the badge again. I would have used a convincing imitation vehicle, dressed up as a rolls.I don't think they'd want the bad PR of fighting it in court.I'm sure the Eagle does have various tanks inside its framework/superstructure, and if not there, in the boxy fuselage area.It has rather a large block behind the engine bells if I remember, you could have quite a large reserve there.

Space: 2099.

Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 9:07 pm
by AndyThomas
Ah, the Eagles. I bloody loved them. Had several of the toys, only got rid of them 5 years or so ago. Very durable. I thought the Eagle fuel was stored just behind the exhaust jets - alternatively plenty of room in the landing pad pods I would have thought. Be interesting to see if they do get redesigned, ah, sensibly. The Register did a great piece on this remake, the comments had me in stitches...

Space: 2099.

Posted: Wed Feb 22, 2012 9:56 pm
by Crash
Not only the toys but the ships themselves were very indestructible. Is a bit like a Subaru. You smash it into something, no problem.