State of the Ninja Turtle Franchise: Your Ramblings..

The number sequels are always determined by how well the last movie did, if TMNT 2 is profitable at the boxoffice/DVD, then a third movie will be possible.




It doesn't appear that Mirage will be working with Imagi on the sequel, but this does not totally rule out the possibility that a sequel won't be CGI, here is a piece of art that Imagi sent Mirage, a possible unused pitch for the sequel, originally taken from Steve Murphy's Blog:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_gb-JVVPbQkU/SJtGFizk5MI/AAAAAAAAC-Q/JMvg9eOonrs/s1600-h/TMNT2.jpg
 
Honestly, I wouldn't care if there's never another live action Turtles film as long as we get a decent sequel for TMNT. I actually thought that the CGI was a vast improvement over the live action films. The 1st one was OK, but movies 2 and 3 were gawdawful.
 
Exactly my point. 6 seperate DVD purchases to do the first 3 seasons.

Not my ideal of "collecting"

I say put them all in 1 box. Collectors edition Tin or something, perhaps a figurine or other tchotchke.

Put that out for about $100 and then perhaps we'll talk.

I hate sounding negative about these things. I really do... I just don't like it when we, as fans, get jerked arround cause someone's DVD release time table is an after thought.
 
That's crazy talk. The first live-action movie was like the ultimate Turtles movie. They did a fine job of combining the comics and cartoons. It had something for everyone.
 
Yes, they will. The number 1 complaint I hear about TMNT is that it didn't have Shredder in it. You keep on going on and on about good writing. You seem to think nothing else matters, as long as its well written. That's not true. When you're dealing with a well known franchise you need to make sure that you satisfy its fans. There was an earlier draft of a Superman movie where Superman wore a black suit and couldn't fly. No matter how well the movie was written, Superman fans wouldn't like a Superman who didn't fly around in a red and blue suit.



That's not true. No one complained about the different origins that Nolan gave to the villains in the Batman movies.
 
I can't. I haven't seen it since I was a kid and I don't remember much about it. Though, I will say that for many people, the old Incredible Hulk TV series was their first introduction to the character. With characters like the Ninja Turtles and Batman, any movie that's made will not be the audience's first introduction to the character.
 
Except that even comic fans have given a favorable comment on the show. It may not have the military or a supervillain, but it does keep to the theme that the Hulk is a curse for the human who turns into him.

Besides, Batman & Robin contained plenty of comic characters, including three villains and still earned scorn from many fans.
 
That may be the number 1 complaint you hear from TMNT fans about the TMNT movies. The number 1 complaint you hear from normal people and critics is that the movies are big and dumb and juvenile (not that there's anything wrong with that, mind you).

The number 1 complaint about the Spider-Man movie from comic book fans before it debuted was that they gave him organic webshooters. Normal people DID NOT CARE about that at all (except maybe to make the usual joke about, "Shouldn't the webs come out of his butt?" that was funny the first time you heard it when you were 12).

You're making a giant generalization based on an extremely limited and extremely skewed sample space. If I poll attendees at the Republican National Convention about how much they approve the respective candidates, I shouldn't be surprised when the majority of them say that they approve of McCain more than Obama, and definitely can't use those results to conclude that McCain will win the election.

-- Ed
 
Firstly, we are talking about a "general audience", not fans who are more familiar with the franchise, the people who have no idea who stockman and Rat King are (and no, they are not as well Known as the Joker or Lex Luthor), even if they are somewhat familiar with the ninja turtles in general.

Second, looking at the reviews at rottentomatoes.com, I'd say more people were disappointed in the PG level action, underdeveloped plot and villains, and small screen time that Donatello and Mikey got. And then there are those who wanted a less serious movie (not necessarily featuring old cartoon characters).

And lastly, I would hope any ninja turtle fan would want a movie that is well written and respects the characters, TMNT didn't try to change the turtles, Splinter, April, Casey, or Karai to the extent that Superman was changed in your example.

I can definitly tell you old comic book fans would throw a fit if the old cartoon versions were used, and old cartoon fans wouldn't like the comic book versions since they are fundamentally different( not just different origins), and the general audience won't care, especially if you believe that Baxter Stockman and Max Winters are that interchangable.
 
Because it ruined those three villains.



Well, TMNT was dumb and juvenile, but I don't think the general audience really expected the movie to be a work of art. Most of the people who saw the movie probably watched Ninja Turtles as a kid.



Really? The number 1 complaint I heard was that the Green Goblin's costume looked stupid.



Ra's Al Ghul and Two-Face aren't that familiar to a general audience either.



And if they took a villain and a plot from the comic books then they wouldn't complain about the underdeveloped villains and plot, now would they?



I don't see how replacing a character with a new one is any different than changing a character.



There really isn't that much of a difference between the versions of Baxter Stockman. He was always a crazy scientist who makes mousers. The main difference is whether he becomes a cyborg or a fly, which wouldn't make that much of a difference to me. Actually, what would be really neat is if he became a cyborg fly.
 
But you insist that the audience will turn a blind eye to quality if the movie caters to their nostalgia feelings, and Batman & Robin does just that.

You even said that you'd rather have a lame villain that familiar rather than one who is new and decent.
 
And Obadiah Stane from Iron Man was an even more obscure villain, which proves that a general audience doesn't really care a great deal about villains and plots from the source material.

If the villain and plot from the comic books were given the same amount of screen time that Max Winters and the monster plot was given, then yes, people would complain that the villains and plot were underdeveloped, and rightfully so.

No character in TMNT replaced an existing character, introducing a new character along with a new story is different from replacing or changing a character.

Old Cartoon Baxter was a stereotypical comedic cartoon mad scientist lackey (which in the context of the old show was fine), Mirage comic book Baxter was a psychopath and his own villain, the difference between both is about the same as Old Cartoon Shredder and Mirage Shredder.
 
No, it doesn't. If you're implying that Batman & Robin was similar to the Adam West show then you're forgetting that Poison Ivy and Bane weren't in the old show. Not to mention Mr. Freeze was almost a completely different character from the one in the old show.



That's really twisting around my words. I actually said that I'd rather have a lame villain than Max Winters, who's not decent. As for whether I agree with the statement you made, it's rather irrelevant, since they haven't used the good villains in the movies yet. There's no need to go to the lame ones.



No, that proves that audiences will even accept an obscure villain from the original source material as opposed to a made up villain.



I'm really not sure what your point is. Didn't TMNT do well its first week and then bomb after that? That seems to indicate that people want to see a new Ninja Turtles movie, but this wasn't the Ninja Turtles movie they wanted to see. If they took a story from the comic books, then it would have a better plot than TMNT so critics wouldn't bash it as much, and the Ninja Turtles fans would like it because it would have characters they are more familiar with. Why are you so opposed to that? What would be the point in making a new story when there's countless stories that haven't been used yet? There is absolutely no advantage in making a new villain. It won't please the critics, it won't please the fans, and it won't please the general audience. So, why do you insist on that being the way to go? Every time they try it with the Ninja Turtles movies, it blows.
 
No, it's an indication of Warner Bros poor marketing and scheduling of TMNT, with a 25 million worldwide marketing budget (and no, that's not good), TMNT was never really pushed by WB as a big time movie and really got the shaft in the wake of 300. It was released at time when the theaters were crowed with movies aiming at the same demographic as TMNT, whether it be kids or young adults, most of which had better marketing. And even though I liked the movie, the weaknesses of TMNT remain, it was underdeveloped and featured little in the way of action and fighting, points that hardly make it a must for repeat viewing.



I'm not opposed to using plots and characters from the comics, I'm opposed to the assertion that they are absolutely needed for a TMNT movie to be good and that a TMNT movie without them is automatically bad. If you were to replace the monster plot scenes from TMNT with scenes based on a plot from the comics without expanding upon them, you would get the same reaction from critics and the general audience, and may even draw more criticism from fans.

Let's say we started from scratch, and built a movie based on a plot from the comics, if it's poorly executed would it still please critics, fans, and the general audience, even if its a story they're familiar with? No. If a new story with new characters was interesting and well developed, and featured enough eye candy, would critics, fans, and the general audience be pleased? Yes, it's all about execution.




Yes, and interesting.
 
Then why did it do good its first week?





You just don't seem to understand why people like comic book movies. When people go to see a comic book movie they like seeing what they loved about a franchise on the big screen being presented to a mainstream audience. This is true regardless of which version of the franchise they liked, be it the comic books or the cartoon.

For instance, I used to watch Batman: The Animated Series as a kid. Two-Face was my absolute favorite villain as a kid. Part of the reason I loved The Dark Knight was that the movie finally presented the character to a mainstream audience. Comic and cartoon fans tend to be rather niche. The mainstream audience really doesn't tend to be into those types of things. But, with a movie you have a mainstream audience experiencing something that the niche has appreciated for a long time. It's like the niche audience is saying to the mainstream "See, this is what I've been telling you about. Isn't it awesome?" If you just made up a completely new villain for The Dark Knight that entire dynamic would be completely gone. The mainstream audience may like it, but the previous fans of the franchise would be disappointed that the mainstream audience would never truly understand what they love about the franchise. Comic book movies should have comic book villains because its part of the reason people love the franchises.

You claim to not be opposed to using plots and characters from the comics, but rather claim that they aren't necessary. Well, it's like whipped cream and pumpkin pie. Whipped cream isn't necessary to eat pumpkin pie, but why in the hell would you want to eat pumpkin pie without it? There's absolutely no reason not to use villains and plots from the comics, so why should they even consider using new ones. Now, maybe if they've already made half a dozen Ninja Turtles movies and they've already used up all the good plots, then fine, make a new villain. But, at this point in the franchise, when they've barely used any of the plots that are already out there, there is absolutely no reason to use a new villain. The fans want whipped cream on their pie. There's a bottle of whipped cream right there. So, why the hell are you pouring honey on their pie? Maybe honey tastes good on pie, who the hell knows? But, they want whipped cream and there's a bottle right there so why don't you wait till you're out of whipped cream before you start screwing around with new things to put on pie?
 
Back
Top