PDA

View Full Version : Why would sending Leo into a jungle would make him a better leader?


Shark_Blade
11-12-2014, 04:47 PM
Shouldn't he be spending more time with people and try to understand them because he needs to lead them? Being alone in the forest, probably learning survival skills but he won't actually learn anything about leadership.

Anyone think 2k7 Splinter is just ridiculous? :-?

cloud
11-12-2014, 04:53 PM
Shouldn't he be spending more time with people and try to understand them because he needs to lead them? Being alone in the forest, probably learning survival skills but he won't actually learn anything about leadership.

Anyone think 2k7 Splinter is just ridiculous? :-?

Actually no. Leo chose to live in the jungles after his training was over. Living in the jungle wasn't the training. If you are interested in tie ins and expanding the movie universe the prequel comics has Splinter traveling around the world training and one of the task was to train under the ancient one from 2k3 series. The video game expanded less on that area by having Leo training in the jungle or at least part of his training in the jungle in some ancient temple.

IndigoErth
11-12-2014, 05:05 PM
Yeah I've assumed it was more about the training than leadership. Though increased and enhanced skills a different environment might bring might help strengthen him in terms of tactics and therefor might translate into a stronger leader? But that's based on seeing that movie only twice at this point, so just my two cents.

Davetello
11-12-2014, 05:21 PM
Leo's a tool for most of the film anyway.

MsMarvelDuckie
11-12-2014, 08:44 PM
Actually, I believe the training was meant to improve his self-reliance, resilience, and strength, as well as teach him endurance and resourcefulness. The environment and isolation meant that he'd have to be completely self-sufficient, which would make him more capable of dealing with unexpected situations. Thus, improving his ability to lead.

Gunpowder
11-12-2014, 10:52 PM
I'll just leave this here...

wGsvFfEJwmc

TrickOrTreater
11-12-2014, 11:13 PM
Actually, I believe the training was meant to improve his self-reliance, resilience, and strength, as well as teach him endurance and resourcefulness. The environment and isolation meant that he'd have to be completely self-sufficient, which would make him more capable of dealing with unexpected situations. Thus, improving his ability to lead.

Makes sense to me, let's go with that.

neatoman
11-13-2014, 02:28 AM
Training in seclusion can make him reach enlightenment?... Or something? I don't know, I'm sure the screen writer thought people would understand but failed to convey it properly.

newhire13
11-17-2014, 10:08 AM
They should have done a better job of explaining it but the overall idea was that he wasn't even supposed to be gone that long. Leo even tells April that the reason he was gone that long is because he got caught up in his own world and when he realized it he was ashamed to come back to Splinter a failure. That's also why I suspect Splinter was rip **** after he realized the turtles went against his orders. I'd be pissed off too if I sent him to train and he was gone for so long and learned nothing (one of my favorite moments is that when Splinter is yelling at Leo you can see Raph smiling lol ).

jenna
11-17-2014, 01:23 PM
Every time I watch this film I wonder if the Leonardo story line is the result of extremely good, nuanced writing, with subtext and character parallels, a la the Cain and Abel archetype, or really, really bad writing, where no-one noticed that small details when put together made the Leonardo character seem like a giant, hypocritical, petulant arse who didn't learn a thing even after all that pre-plot training and 90 minute plot time.

I don't think I'll ever know. Just one of the many paradoxes about this film.

snake
11-17-2014, 02:04 PM
Actually no. Leo chose to live in the jungles after his training was over. Living in the jungle wasn't the training. If you are interested in tie ins and expanding the movie universe the prequel comics has Splinter traveling around the world training and one of the task was to train under the ancient one from 2k3 series. The video game expanded less on that area by having Leo training in the jungle or at least part of his training in the jungle in some ancient temple.

They had a 2007 prequel comic? What's it called?

Leo656
11-17-2014, 08:23 PM
They had a 2007 prequel comic? What's it called?

If I recall correctly they had one for each Turtle and April. I have them I just haven't looked at them in a while. They're in storage, if I recall. Pretty much just showed a little of what everyone had been doing in the "recent past" before the movie's events.

Other than setting up the Raphael/Nightwatcher story, I don't recall them being very necessary. I remember feeling like they a textbook example of "Let's squeeze a few bucks out of the super-fans who buy everything". I don't think they expanded on anything from the movie much at all. I could be wrong, though, it's been a couple years since I read 'em.

Andrew NDB
11-17-2014, 08:33 PM
There's a whole variety of very real reasons why sending him to a South American jungle could make Leonardo a better leader (or, more importantly, a stronger "man")... but I feel like the reality is something more akin to, "Eh, sounds cool!"

graphic_content
11-18-2014, 09:28 AM
Every time I watch this film I wonder if the Leonardo story line is the result of extremely good, nuanced writing, with subtext and character parallels, a la the Cain and Abel archetype, or really, really bad writing, where no-one noticed that small details when put together made the Leonardo character seem like a giant, hypocritical, petulant arse who didn't learn a thing even after all that pre-plot training and 90 minute plot time.

I don't think I'll ever know. Just one of the many paradoxes about this film.

Hypocritical is right...that always bothered me about established vigilantes...they feel so completely justified in their actions, and yet cannot accept the fact that others can follow in their footsteps for reasons of their own. I love Leo, but he was wrong chastising Raph for the whole Nightwatcher-thing.

Candy Kappa
11-18-2014, 09:56 AM
The issue was Raph as the Nightcrawler made himself more and more known to the public. He deliberately walked around fully seen by people.

massakre
11-18-2014, 10:52 AM
I know every time I visited the jungle I came back a better follower, not leader.. I thought I was a rebellious leader until my parents put me out and then I realized just how much I wanted to follow their rules after 2 nights in that damn jungle.. but that's just me. Leo is his own individual. :lol:

jenna
11-18-2014, 01:03 PM
but I feel like the reality is something more akin to, "Eh, sounds cool!"

Almost certainly this.



Other than setting up the Raphael/Nightwatcher story, I don't recall them being very necessary. I remember feeling like they a textbook example of "Let's squeeze a few bucks out of the super-fans who buy everything". I don't think they expanded on anything from the movie much at all. I could be wrong, though, it's been a couple years since I read 'em.

Yup. They didn't even bother to make the Raphael/Nightwatcher story consistent with the backstory given in the film novelisation. A lack of such continuity can only point to milking the merchandise machine....

DarkLightDragon
11-18-2014, 02:49 PM
Beats me.

All I can think of is it giving a reason for Raph to get pissyy at Leo.

Powder
11-18-2014, 07:18 PM
...Did you just self-censor the word "pissy"? I don't even.

DarkLightDragon
11-19-2014, 06:02 AM
Well excuse me then.

No need to get pissy.:P

jestermon
11-19-2014, 02:13 PM
It never says he was in the jungle the whole time, he obviously is capable of international transport, it's more like what fans decided to say is wrong with the movie.

BubblyShell22
11-19-2014, 03:09 PM
Leo was only supposed to be gone a year, but I believe he stayed longer because he felt he wasn't ready to come back and felt he hadn't lived up to what Splinter wanted of him. I know many people who feel Leo was a jerk, but I disagree given all the pressure he was put under in the movie to be a good leader. If anything, Splinter was in the wrong when he chastised Leo and said, "There are no excuses when you are the leader, my student." But how can a leader be efficient if his followers don't listen to him?

But I believe the reason for the training was to keep him away from his brothers so he could train on his own to become more self-reliant.

Jephael
11-19-2014, 05:32 PM
The more I think about it, I feel like the whole jungle scenario was a wasted potential. The movie should've had Leonardo in danger and then the other TMNT would go to rescue him and they would have to fight that dude who was badgering that village and then Max Winters could've actually been the villain.

LeotheLateBloomer
01-17-2015, 04:28 AM
May I ask what was you guys' problem with Leo in this movie because I don't get it?

Leo656
01-17-2015, 04:48 AM
I kinda don't either. Other than "he's kind of a cocky prick" but that's kind of a defining characteristic of most Leader Characters.

I've heard a lot of people take great offense to the "I'm Better Than You" line, but... well, he's the leader, not Raph, so what? Is it just that it was "insensitive"? Meh, grow up. Raphael's the one who walks around with the gigantic and undeserved chip on his shoulder most times despite not having much of a reason beyond "angry character". People just have a tendency to not like Leo in general, I've noticed, same as with many other "Leader types". I'm very much the opposite, for me leader types are infinitely more interesting characters.

As for the entire angle of Leo's seclusion... I just think the writers wanted to tell a story where time has passed, they were separated somehow, but the plot forced them back together. And I think having all four of them go completely separate ways would have eaten up too much of the movie's time. So they whipped up the "Leo training in seclusion" bit. Like everything about the movie, it's a little bit rushed and contrived but hardly terrible.

B-Man
01-17-2015, 04:54 AM
May I ask what was you guys' problem with Leo in this movie because I don't get it?

I find him in the 2007 movie to be a little too self-righteous & lacking Leo's humble charm. Just didn't enjoy this really stuck-up version of the character. I wanted Raph to kick his ass.

Leo656
01-17-2015, 05:25 AM
See, I think a lot of that is in the interpretation. Other than the original cartoon, where he was more of a whiny stick-in-the-mud, I've always seen Leo as being rather cocky and self-righteous.

This may shock you, but I personally enjoy those kinds of characters. :lol:

B-Man
01-17-2015, 05:51 AM
Haha :P Nick Leo gets it perfect for me, being low-key & humble yet a badass when necessary. 2007 Leo is a totally appropriate version, I just find him too humorless and unlikeable. He says "I'm better than you" and is proven to not be minutes later :tlol: If there's other versions this douchey, I haven't seen em'.

Leo656
01-17-2015, 05:57 AM
Lucky punches "prove" nothing. That's a one time out of ten scenario, if that. :trazz:

Powder
01-17-2015, 07:02 AM
As a Leo fan-boy (one who similarly goes to great lengths to shed light on the greatness that is Leonardo), I totally agree with Leo656's points.

B-Man
01-17-2015, 07:35 AM
I love Leo too, just not this version. Actually it's the only version of him I dislike, come to think of it.

Leo656
01-17-2015, 07:37 AM
For me, only the old cartoon one is insufferable, but I can deal with it, since everyone had their personality dialed up to 11 in that one. But if there was only one Leo who ever existed, and it was that one, I could totally buy why he's so hated in general.

As for 2007, pretty much everything about that movie needed more time in the oven, characterization included.

Bry
01-17-2015, 09:26 AM
People just have a tendency to not like Leo in general, I've noticed, same as with many other "Leader types". I'm very much the opposite, for me leader types are infinitely more interesting characters.

Also see the overwhelming hatred for this guy in many circles:

http://www.scifinow.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Cyclops-X-MEN.jpg

I'm with you - I've become way more fond of Leo the older I've gotten, too. I feel like when some folks are young and afraid of adult responsibility, it's easy to see the leader characters are the "fun police". But that's exactly why I like them - they keep it all together, usually at great personal expense, because it's the right thing to do. There's potential for a lot of interesting internal conflict there. Raphael and Wolverine may be more "fun" -- and hey, I do love both of those characters because of it -- but they'd be completely screwed without the responsible leader type there to help reign in their reckless and destructive impulses.

Of course, this also applies to many writers, who forget that the responsible ones can also be fun and interesting characters in their own right.

2007 Leo is a totally appropriate version, I just find him too humorless and unlikeable. He says "I'm better than you" and is proven to not be minutes later :tlol:

I had a different read on that - they're pretty evenly matched, but Raph wanted a fight and Leo didn't. Raphael was in rage-mode and actually wanted to hurt Leo, but deep down Leo didn't want to hurt Raph and was holding back. Raph's ashamed reaction to his own actions sold that really well.

For me, only the old cartoon one is insufferable, but I can deal with it, since everyone had their personality dialed up to 11 in that one.

See, I liked him so much more in the first season/miniseries, and Cam Clarke's original portrayal of Leo was great. As the show went on, the portrayal and the performance got whinier and seemed a lot less confident/competent. But everyone on that show got lighter and goofier as the years went on.

CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy
01-17-2015, 09:41 AM
Going with the assumption that Leo was a self-righteous prick, what if being alone and isolated was meant to show him that a leader is nothing without a team?

Of course, then it kinda goes to show that Leo didn't learn a whole heckuva lot anyway...

Just a potentially different spin. $0.02

Leo656
01-17-2015, 09:42 AM
Bry: Yep. Yep. I've always preferred the leader-types even as a kid, though. I always read "leader" as "default main character" and so have always been puzzled whenever anyone bemoaned the fact that he/they would receive a large amount of attention. I'm like, "aren't they kind of supposed to?"

And yeah, Clarke/Leo and everyone really was 100x better in that first few episodes. It's really a shame that show totally peaked right out of the gate. Them's the breaks, though. I can watch the debut episodes anytime, but anything from the rest of the series, I need a few brews and absolutely nothing better to do.

I "like" Wolverine but I was sick of him and his over-exposure by the time I was 9. You have to give credit to Jackman for making his portrayal so popular despite being mostly-neutered by the films and their all-ages nature. I mean, the guy got popular basically by turning everyone he meets into a seeping pincushion, and in the movies he gets over by engaging in bloodless PG battles and popping his claws in "bad-ass" fashion while rarely actually using them. There's so much else going on and a million other characters, and yet, those movies are still basically "Wolverine And Those Other Guys". If I knew nothing at all of the character before seeing the movies, I'd be hard-pressed to explain why he's so important or dreamy.

It's always really puzzling to me in the movie when he calls Cyclops a "dick" despite not having done anything actually dick-ish. It's like, "No, Wolverine, it is actually You who are the Dick, based on behavioral evidence. Alas, the movie poster tells me you're the main character and thus I have to try and empathize with you. But I don't really buy it."

ToTheNines
01-17-2015, 11:39 AM
For me, only the old cartoon one is insufferable, but I can deal with it, since everyone had their personality dialed up to 11 in that one. But if there was only one Leo who ever existed, and it was that one, I could totally buy why he's so hated in general.

As for 2007, pretty much everything about that movie needed more time in the oven, characterization included.

He has the potential to be really awful in the 4kids show from time to time. I mean, every time I watch "Shredder Strikes" I just stare in disgust as he runs away to cry just because Splinter tells him he kicked his brothers assess due to his own prowess, and not because of his stupid swords.

Rooish
01-17-2015, 04:56 PM
That wasn't really "awful" though--just kind of wussy and weird.

IndigoErth
01-17-2015, 05:28 PM
I find him in the 2007 movie to be a little too self-righteous & lacking Leo's humble charm. Just didn't enjoy this really stuck-up version of the character. I wanted Raph to kick his ass.
I love Leo too, just not this version. Actually it's the only version of him I dislike, come to think of it.
Yeah, pretty much the side I have to agree with there. (Though I didn't want Raph to kick his ass. lol)

If he trains the hardest/is the most dedicated and is the most skilled because of it, he'd got every right to be proud of that, but as for 2007 making him look kind of jerky... Bleh. Don't care for that. :ohwell:

Although I recognize that the only time he really came across like that was only during the fight with Raph. They were angry with each other and, though I prefer to see Leo depicted with better self control, it is kind of understandable that pissed off siblings probably are going to make cutting remarks that they know full well pushes buttons and gets under each other's skin. Though I still don't care for it, such low behavior just doesn't feel like Leo protocol.

For it I pretty much rate 2007 as lowest. Not to say that 2014 didn't have some fail spots in it as well in his demeanor, though it does have some brighter spots as well.

I get that different people like a different take on characters, esp their favorites, and that's fine. Personally I prefer a Leo who bears so much responsibly on his shoulders with strength, humility, and compassion because he's a good guy and feels it's his duty and life calling. A guy that in most cases would not lower himself to such pettiness or undignified or regrettable behavior.

Bry
01-17-2015, 05:39 PM
He has the potential to be really awful in the 4kids show from time to time. I mean, every time I watch "Shredder Strikes" I just stare in disgust as he runs away to cry just because Splinter tells him he kicked his brothers assess due to his own prowess, and not because of his stupid swords.

Aw, I didn't mind that! He was a bit whiny, but this was early on in the show's run, and he'd just been embarrassed in front of his family and took it badly. I thought that was a pretty realistic "teenage" thing for him to mope about. (And if by "cry" you mean crankily chopped up a bunch of newspapers?)

Leo656
01-17-2015, 06:05 PM
Yeah, pretty much the side I have to agree with there. (Though I didn't want Raph to kick his ass. lol)

If he trains the hardest/is the most dedicated and is the most skilled because of it, he'd got every right to be proud of that, but as for 2007 making him look kind of jerky... Bleh. Don't care for that. :ohwell:

Although I recognize that the only time he really came across like that was only during the fight with Raph. They were angry with each other and, though I prefer to see Leo depicted with better self control, it is kind of understandable that pissed off siblings probably are going to make cutting remarks that they know full well pushes buttons and gets under each other's skin. Though I still don't care for it, such low behavior just doesn't feel like Leo protocol.

For it I pretty much rate 2007 as lowest. Not to say that 2014 didn't have some fail spots in it as well in his demeanor, though it does have some brighter spots as well.

I get that different people like a different take on characters, esp their favorites, and that's fine. Personally I prefer a Leo who bears so much responsibly on his shoulders with strength, humility, and compassion because he's a good guy and feels it's his duty and life calling. A guy that in most cases would not lower himself to such pettiness or undignified or regrettable behavior.

See, as a person who has been FORCED to deal with all that "burden of responsibility", etc., especially at a younger age, I find it far more believable that he would in fact be more "petty" at times, especially when dealing with someone like Raph who seemingly ONLY exists to give him sh*t. Yes, he's a "good guy", but he's also not made of stone, he deals with a lot more on a daily basis than the rest of them do, and frankly anyone who is as good as Leo would have to be would carry a gigantic chip on their shoulder. They just wouldn't brag about it, because when you know you're good, you don't need to mouth off about it. In the situation with Raph, it made perfect sense, because they were trying to piss each other off. "I'm better than you" was a low blow, but it both fit the situation and how I've always seen Leo's personality as it relates to Raph.

He's got plenty of "humility" and "compassion" when it comes to everyone else. With Raph? No, he's always going to be a little bit more abrasive with Raph, partly because he knows Raph wants to usurp his position, and if he shows any "weakness" that will "prove" what Raph somehow suspects, that he's just as suited to lead as Leo is. Part of Leo's "responsibility", is keeping Raphael in his place. He doesn't have to act that way with Mikey or Donnie, because neither one of them wants his "spot". Leo and Raphael are both Alpha Dogs. That's the root of their rivalry and why Leo is always going to be a much bigger jerk to Raph than to anyone else.

If anything, I think some of the portrayals of Leo have been too passive. That movie's scene was a little more than some people were okay with, but it was also done to finally Do Something with all those years of "pent-up frustration" between the two characters, so it still made perfect sense in the context of the story they told. Honestly, it never seemed "off" to me until people here started saying so. I get what angle they're coming from but I personally don't see it.

pennydreadful
01-17-2015, 11:50 PM
I've always felt that Raph brings out the worst in Leo - he just pushes Leo's buttons (deliberately or not).

monsterocket
01-18-2015, 03:37 AM
Out of everyone, I'd say Raphael teaches Leo how to be a better leader (even more so than Splinter). Mike and Don are easy to manage, the learning comes from the friction that Raph causes.

DarkLightDragon
01-18-2015, 07:56 AM
Aw, I didn't mind that! He was a bit whiny, but this was early on in the show's run, and he'd just been embarrassed in front of his family and took it badly. I thought that was a pretty realistic "teenage" thing for him to mope about. (And if by "cry" you mean crankily chopped up a bunch of newspapers?)

And plus, he learned the lesson by the end of Part 1 during the fight with the Foot, so it's not like his moody "sensei no get me" phase was around for too long.

ToTheNines
01-18-2015, 08:00 AM
Yeah, but he also pissed me off during City at War too. Then they just all decide to kiss his ass in the end.