 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General ModelsRailroadsRocketsRadio Controlled Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater ModelsModelGeeks.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Model Forum / General / Railroads / October 2009Thomas The Tank
Just watched Thomas for first time in ages, what happened to the Fat Controller? H. > Just watched Thomas for first time in ages, what happened to the Fat > Controller? > > H. Is the new controller any relation to Topham Hatt? H. >> Just watched Thomas for first time in ages, what happened to the >> Fat Controller? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > H. Cancel all that, just looked it up on Wikipedia, should have done that first. H. >Just watched Thomas for first time in ages, what happened to the Fat >Controller? It's not policically correct any more. >H. >> Just watched Thomas for first time in ages, what happened to the Fat >> Controller? > > It's not policically correct any more. > >> H. Sir Topham Hat was invented for the US audience. wolf k. > Sir Topham Hat was invented for the US audience. Yes, he was invented for the North American, not just "US", audience.  SignatureCheers. Roger T. See the GER at: - http://www.islandnet.com/~rogertra/ >> Sir Topham Hat was invented for the US audience. > > Yes, he was invented for the North American, not just "US", audience. And the Thin Controller of the narrow-gauge lines is referred to as the Narrow-Gauge Controller or Mr. Percival. SignatureMartin S. >>> Just watched Thomas for first time in ages, what happened to the Fat >>> Controller? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Sir Topham Hat was invented for the US audience. 1951 seems a bit early for that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fat_Controller says his name is first mentioned in the intro to book 6 (Henry the Green Engine), published in 1951. Tim >>> Just watched Thomas for first time in ages, what happened to the Fat >>> Controller? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Sir Topham Hat was invented for the US audience. No, he wasn't. Sir Topham Hatt (note the extra 't') was the name given to him by the Rev. W. Awdrey, and it appears in the original books. There's no single reason why the US version uses his real name rather than his nickname (although doing so misses out on one of the in-story jokes, whereby the junior locos are told to refer to him as "Sir Topham" rather than use his nickname); it's a probably a combination of the fact that it sounds more English, the term "controller" isn't particularly meaningful to those who aren't familiar with rail terminology, and possibly a reluctance to use the word "fat". Mark SignatureBlog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk >>>> Just watched Thomas for first time in ages, what happened to the Fat >>>> Controller? [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Mark What's for sure is that this is a question the scholars will chew over for decades to come. Until one of 'em comes up with a "definitive" answer and gets a Ph.D. for it. ;-) Thanks to all for the additional data (yup, I'm a scholar when I have nothing better to do. ;-) ) wolf k. >>>>> Just watched Thomas for first time in ages, what happened to the Fat >>>>> Controller? [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > wolf k. It was good to see Thomas playing to a full house at the Battlefield line today. Thomas (1937 Hunslet) was in fine form - must have had an overhaul. Cheers, Simon > Wolf K put finger to keyboard and typed: >>> "Hozz" <Hozz@btinternet.co.uk> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > particularly meaningful to those who aren't familiar with rail > terminology, and possibly a reluctance to use the word "fat". Mainly the last one. They don't call Mr. Percival the Thin Controller either. SignatureMartin S. >> Wolf K put finger to keyboard and typed: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Mainly the last one. > They don't call Mr. Percival the Thin Controller either. There's also the fact that Sir Topham Hatt couldn't be considered to be fat in the USA. >> Mainly the last one. >> They don't call Mr. Percival the Thin Controller either. > > There's also the fact that Sir Topham Hatt couldn't be considered to > be fat in the USA. <giggle> Chris Don't worry it's them politically correct lot interfering again. I note the BBC have been criticised for altering the ending to the old 'Humpty Dumpty' nursery rhyme. Instead of being unable to "put Humpty together again", all the King's Horses "made Humpty happy again". http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/tv-radio/humpty-dumpty-had-a-great-fall- but-dont-worry-hell-be-fine-1804870.html People claim that 'Humpty Dumpty' was originally the nick-name of a siege machine during the 1643 English Civil War siege of Bristol. The story goes that under the cover of darkness, the citizens of Bristol dug to make the moat around the city wider. When the siege machine tried to bridge over the moat the following day, it fell short of the opposite bank and broke. What next for Thomas The Tank ? Thomas being converted to solar power and Gordon running off a hydrogen cell ? Chris > Don't worry it's them politically correct lot interfering again. > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Chris I seem to remember that it was a cannon on the royalist side that was at Colchester And fell off a defensive wall David > Don't worry it's them politically correct lot interfering again. > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Chris I seem to remember that it was a cannon on the royalist side that was at Colchester And fell off a defensive wall David > > Don't worry it's them politically correct lot interfering again. > > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > David And I posted twice accidentally and then looked it up on Wikipedia to find out that the Colchester Story was a legend... I doo feel such a humpty David > Don't worry it's them politically correct lot interfering again. > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > What next for Thomas The Tank ? Thomas being converted to solar > power and Gordon running off a hydrogen cell ? Apparently they've retired the model railway and Thomas is now 100% CGI. SignatureMartin S. >> Don't worry it's them politically correct lot interfering again. >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Apparently they've retired the model railway and Thomas is now 100% > CGI. I've just seen an advert on ITV for a new Thomas DVD. He definitely looks 100% CGI. >>> Don't worry it's them politically correct lot interfering again. >>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > I've just seen an advert on ITV for a new Thomas DVD. He definitely looks > 100% CGI. Thats a pity cos the modelling was amazing. Cheers, Simon > >>> Don't worry it's them politically correct lot interfering again. > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > Cheers, > Simon Yes I agree ........ as I recall the loco's were in about Gauge 1. The piece I read told how many of the set layouts were done in 'winter' so to cut down on time and detail. Modern CGI is almost too perfect but that's the way the Americans see progress, it's cheaper too. I do wonder what would happen if they showed the same story in it's original form against a CGI version ? Don't get me wrong I love animation but I fear the moral changes and the quick animation techniques used will harm the story. Chris >> "Jane Sullivan" <ne...@ho.me> wrote... >> > "MartinS" <m...@my.place> wrote... [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > Don't get me wrong I love animation but I fear the moral changes and > the quick animation techniques used will harm the story. I agree. Having characters speak patronisingly to the viewers and ask for responses, as in Dora the Explorer, has spread to Mickey Mouse, Winnie the Pooh and others. Thankfully my 5-year-old grandson now prefers the old Looney Toons and Popeye shows, which are just entertainment and maybe not so PC or "educational" as some spoilsports would like. They are shown in Canada on "Toon Retro", rather than the kiddie channels such as Family and Treehouse. SignatureMartin S. [...] > I agree. Having characters speak patronisingly to the viewers and ask > for responses, as in Dora the Explorer, has spread to Mickey Mouse, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > would like. They are shown in Canada on "Toon Retro", rather than the > kiddie channels such as Family and Treehouse. Your grandson understands the difference between a story and a sermon. Good for him. I used to wonder why well-educated people believe that writing stories with obvious messages would teach anyone anything. Not anymore: there are people who just don't understand how the imagination works, perhaps they suffer from limited imaginations themselves. These are often also the people who want to ban books with bad words etc in them. They believe in a kind of verbal magic: expose a kid to a bad word, and the kid will be infected forever. Literalists of all religious and non-religious persuasions suffer from this odd quirk of the mind. Now someone will think, "Yes, but Jesus used parables to teach his lessons." He did. But he was careful to a) use examples from everyday life; and b) preface his stories with the subject of his moral. Why did he do this? Because his parables aren't obviously "educational". In fact, people have argued about their "real" meaning for about 2,000 years. ;-) HTH wolf k. > [...] >> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > HTH > wolf k. Agree with what you say there, especially about the patronising bit, most important is the requirement to entertain after which some sort of message can be inserted. however the US sitcom method of sit and talk for 2 minutes solves all problems doesnt quite work. We've just started to let our son watch the Simpsons but are very careful to stamp out any attempt at emulation - got to teach the difference between that and reality as he will be exposed to unsavery charachters throughout life, cannot protect from that. Plus there are some amusing bits in it (now am forced to watch as well). Main difference notice between original modelled Thomas and more recent CGI (shugsomething) is the script must be of high enough quality to keep attention, CGI appear to depend more on dancing images and exciting sounds. Doesnt have to be that way - look at original Star Wars. cheers, Simon > We've just started to let our son watch the Simpsons....... Homer, my hero and role model. SignatureCheers. Roger T. See the GER at: - http://www.islandnet.com/~rogertra/ >> We've just started to let our son watch the Simpsons....... > > Homer, my hero and role model. Doh! SignatureMartin S. >> We've just started to let our son watch the Simpsons....... > > Homer, my hero and role model. explains a lot :-) cheers, Simon > "Wolf K" <wekirch@sympatico.ca> wrote... >> [...] [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > and exciting sounds. Doesnt have to be that way - look at original > Star Wars. 2001 and the original Star Wars didn't use CGI. They used mechanically or computer controlled models and tracking cameras, and sophisticated matting techniques for backgrounds and views through windows. All the spacecraft were physical scale models (as was DS9). The weightless scenes in 2001 were simulated by hanging the actors upside down and filming from below, so you couldn't see the support wires. SignatureMartin S. >> "Wolf K" <wekirch@sympatico.ca> wrote... >>> [...] [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > scenes in 2001 were simulated by hanging the actors upside down and > filming from below, so you couldn't see the support wires. then am even more impressed by Star Wars, some films would have depended on those expensive effects and left it at that, but these have a good script as well. Cheers, Simon >>> "Wolf K" <wekirch@sympatico.ca> wrote... >>>> [...] [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > depended on those expensive effects and left it at that, but these > have a good script as well. If you want to watch films with no CGI, good effects and wonderful scripts then I would recommend Wallace and Gromit. > Cheers, > Simon >>>> "Wolf K" <wekirch@sympatico.ca> wrote... >>>>> [...] [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] >> Cheers, >> Simon Not against CGI, just that it seems to make them lazy with rest of film content. Have enjoyed the absurd but gentle humour of W&G. However, for me the best of all is Flash Gordon. the story, the script, the characters, the actors, the music and the wow Princess .....Dare I say unbeatable. Cheers, Simon > "simon" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote... >> "MartinS" <me@my.place> wrote... [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > If you want to watch films with no CGI, good effects and wonderful > scripts then I would recommend Wallace and Gromit. I agree, but it took Nick Park years to make them with Plasticine stop- motion. His later work done in partnership with animation studios, e.g. Creature Comforts, does use some CGI and other shortcuts. I think the first character done entirely in CGI was Brian the Amoeba. SignatureMartin S. >>>> "Wolf K" <wekirch@sympatico.ca> wrote... >>>>> [...] [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] >> Cheers, >> Simon I wouldn't mind a dog like Grommit. He even does the washing up. :-) wolf k. > If you want to watch films with no CGI, good effects and wonderful > scripts then I would recommend Wallace and Gromit. Or Shaun the Sheep (from the same studio as Wallace & Gromit) <http://www.shaunthesheep.com> SignatureBruce Fletcher Stronsay, Orkney UK <http://claremont.islandblogging.co.uk> "Resistance is NOT futile, it's voltage divided by current" >> If you want to watch films with no CGI, good effects and wonderful >> scripts then I would recommend Wallace and Gromit. > > Or Shaun the Sheep (from the same studio as Wallace & Gromit) > <http://www.shaunthesheep.com> If its daft sheep your after then Tractor Tom is brilliant. cheers, Simon >> If you want to watch films with no CGI, good effects and wonderful >> scripts then I would recommend Wallace and Gromit. > > Or Shaun the Sheep (from the same studio as Wallace & Gromit) > <http://www.shaunthesheep.com> Erm, it looks like CGI to me. Look at the highlights on the dog's nose, for example. wolf k. >>> If you want to watch films with no CGI, good effects and wonderful >>> scripts then I would recommend Wallace and Gromit. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Erm, it looks like CGI to me. Look at the highlights on the dog's nose, > for example. I believe Shaun the Sheep uses partial CGI, and Timmy Time, its kindergarten offshoot, looks like 100% CGI. SignatureMartin S. > "MartinS" <me@my.place> wrote... >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > depended on those expensive effects and left it at that, but these > have a good script as well. I believe the first three were pre-CGI, aside from the obvious fakes, e.g., Jabba the Hutt as inserted in the later "enhanced" version. http://homepage.ntlworld.com/toby.p/real%20jabba%20or%20cgi.htm SignatureMartin S. > Don't worry it's them politically correct lot interfering again. Next thing we know they'll be changing the description of people covered in soot in "Henry's Sneeze". SignatureArthur Figgis Surrey, UK >> Don't worry it's them politically correct lot interfering again. > > Next thing we know they'll be changing the description of people covered > in soot in "Henry's Sneeze". A bit like the US reporter who asked Nelson Mandela what it was like to be an African American.......... Cheers Richard SignatureI have become...............comfortably numb |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.