PDA

View Full Version : Everything Great About TMNT 2014


ZariusTwo
10-15-2016, 12:36 PM
onoFuIx6NSA

TrickOrTreater
10-15-2016, 03:30 PM
"Everything that's actually awful that I'm going to say is great just because."

Even the f*cking Paramount logo music.

I hope this is a parody channel.

IndigoErth
10-15-2016, 04:07 PM
That guy is overly forgiving. Certainly some eye rolling defense, esp about Fox. To each their own I suppose... He needs to do the newest one that actually starred the Turtles.

Only thing that rubbed me the wrong way was yet again the whole "it's not for us, it's just for these newbie kids over here [of whom many won't be lifelong fans anyhow, or two years from now for that matter]" junk. I don't mind sharing the Turtles - after all it needs to add to its ranks new potential lifers who TMNT will still be beloved by when we're gone and pass it down from there - but I despise the continued "just a kids thing" message and trying to just shrug and take it away from the people it matters to most.

Galactus
10-15-2016, 05:41 PM
Let's not be negative.

I like everything.

Y'know everything? I like it.

Y'know all movies? I like them all.

Sabacooza
10-15-2016, 06:14 PM
Why can't TMNT be treated something like Star Wars in the sense that it appeals to all ages? I don't understand why TMNT has to be strictly geared towards kids because that way of thinking is very narrow minded. Why not maximize your revenue by striking that perfect balance and going after everyone? I guess because the title characters are talking teenage mutant turtles, they're automatically viewed as a joke. How ridiculous.

Andrew NDB
10-15-2016, 06:38 PM
90% of what this guy likes is horrific.

Vegita-San
10-15-2016, 06:40 PM
constructive negativity is nothing to be ashamed of. As much as I am not a fan of the new nick series, there IS stuff to defend there that is good.

There is NOTHING to defend with these stupid bay movies.

I think this guy is doing this channel just to troll us 'naysayers' that are disgusted with the current state of reboots and sequels. it's how people who are supposedly 'supportive' of things operate these days.


as for the rest, no one except Eastman and Laird have EVER taken TMNT seriously. Why should they?

They all form their first opinion with the 'goofy title' and then it downfalls from there. you have to introduce it to kids at a young age while they are still a bit open minded. then wait for that age to mature for anyone in hollywood to take it seriously, i think.


That, and the only version of the property that has ever had a chance to be lastingly successful IS the Fred Wolf Version. that's what sticks in everyone's mind. most never heard of the 4kids series....and I don't think the new nick series has made as much of a dent in the sub conscious as some people would like to think either.

other wise you'd hear more kids yelling booyaka sha all over the place like they did with cowabunga.


What TMNT needs these days is someone in charge with the mindsset of the IDW folks. whoever runs that series seems to know how to not only properly mix in old and new, but do it with enough of a twist that it doesn't feel goofy....

the nick series doesn't have that element and neither does the movie division.

TurtleTitan97
10-15-2016, 07:08 PM
The only "great" thing about it was that it ended.

Bry
10-15-2016, 09:13 PM
I haven't watched the video, but I'm just gonna assume it's 5 seconds long and consists of someone saying "Eventually it ended". :twink:

Wildcat
10-16-2016, 04:14 AM
Have not seen Out of the Shadows yet but for this I agree about Shredder/Sacks. Loved the super armor and he should have remained Shredder...not reshoot with "Asian guy" because of interwebz.

And ya, Megan Fox is not THAT bad either.

WebLurker
10-16-2016, 01:08 PM
While some of the comments were meant to be light-hearted, I actually agree with a lot of them. The intro and fight scenes were great, the Turtles were well-cast and acted (unique clothing is always a plus). Never understood the problem of Shredder's "Transformers" armor, since it still looked like the Shredder's costume and in the various cartoons, he's always been shown to be willing to use advanced tech alongside classic martial arts. I also thought that Megan Fox did fine with the role.

I also agree with the video that Sacks should've been the Shredder as originally planned. It would've streamlined the movie more and would've been more satisfying, since Sacks was the more developed of the two. On top of that, since Hamato Yoshi wasn't part of the story, there's no reason to have an Orouku Saki Shredder. (That said, they shoehorned Saki in as well as could be expected, all things considered, and I did like that in this movie, he looked and talked a lot like the 2012 cartoon Shredder.)

I also think the ending point that the movie was designed to appeal to the current generation more than the old-school fans is a fair one. The franchise has had so much variation in the different iterations, that there's no single interpretation that dictates what can and can't be done. Just because the first generation fans don't like it doesn't mean it doesn't have a place in the franchise.

(Now, I don't think it's an Oscar-winner and did like TMNT better, but I though it captured the spirit of the franchise pretty well and was more enjoyable than the original movie -- yes, blasphemy, I know, but hey, I've found the original movie to be less satisfying than any of the other movies and cartoons I've seen.)

Vegita-San
10-16-2016, 07:56 PM
Pre-face: You are most welcome to like this movie. this is my view on the matter. Please hold off the internet pitch forks. End Pre-face.


But there is nothing TOO this movie. nothing to it in relation to turtle stuff and nothing too it if you take the turtles out of it .


There is no great acting. no great plot. no originality. no ENERGY from anyone involved on screen. they don't even have any real fights. it all lasts a few seconds in short shots and weapons use is non existent.

If you took the turtle elements out of it, it wouldn't even have enough of any material to even BE a 30 minute movie, let alone almost a two hour one and no one would have even noticed it was around. that's a cold hard fact.

It's a problem with ALL the recent reboots and sequels lately. they don't have to cater to the old fan base, and anyone who wOULD give the movie a chance is so used to bland ness, that they'll find something to like just so they won't be mean to the movies efforts.


At least that's how i see things, however bluntly it's stated. I just don't see how people can like movies like this.

plastroncafe
10-16-2016, 08:12 PM
The only "great" thing about it was that it ended.

I haven't watched the video, but I'm just gonna assume it's 5 seconds long and consists of someone saying "Eventually it ended". :twink:

Came here to say the same thing.
Well played!

Autbot_Benz
10-16-2016, 08:13 PM
I own the 2014 movie on Dvd and I think I have watched only twice. it sits in my shelf collecting dust

Bry
10-16-2016, 08:32 PM
Came here to say the same thing.
Well played!

Ha, beat to it by two hours! That's what I get for hitting "Reply" at the top before reading the thread. :twink:

IndigoErth
10-16-2016, 08:43 PM
weapons use is non existent.
Aw, give a guy a little credit.

http://i.imgur.com/IRUYl5M.gif

Okay, so one of the few (couple?) times they actually have him using his swords IS against metal robo battle armor and is surely the worst moment to suddenly remember that you own katanas and submit them to major damage against an opponent you can't harm with them.

Vegita-San
10-16-2016, 09:42 PM
which means either the weapons where dulled and rather useless anyway, or saki had access to super strong armor material.


And, also, flying a plane somehow with your bo staff as a rudder does not = using weapons :)

WebLurker
10-16-2016, 09:45 PM
But there is nothing TOO this movie. nothing to it in relation to turtle stuff and nothing too it if you take the turtles out of it .

:-?


There is no great acting.

Could be, although you could get a lot worse.


no great plot. no originality.

I will concede that it's not aiming higher than being a fun blockbuster

no ENERGY from anyone involved on screen.

I have to disagree. The Turtles, at least, had energy.

they don't even have any real fights. it all lasts a few seconds in short shots and weapons use is non existent.

Did we watch the same movie? I will concede that the fights were not that long, but I think they where pretty good. The snow fight was great and lasted for awhile, too.

If you took the turtle elements out of it, it wouldn't even have enough of any material to even BE a 30 minute movie, let alone almost a two hour one and no one would have even noticed it was around. that's a cold hard fact.

I don't understand what you're saying here. Of course a movie will be awful short if the main characters are cut out.

It's a problem with ALL the recent reboots and sequels lately. they don't have to cater to the old fan base, and anyone who wOULD give the movie a chance is so used to bland ness, that they'll find something to like just so they won't be mean to the movies efforts.

Or maybe it's just not as bad as its reputation suggests?


At least that's how i see things, however bluntly it's stated. I just don't see how people can like movies like this.

I'm not saying it was the best of movies or the best TMNT outing, but it was fun, did the characters justice, so I don't have any reason to dislike it.

Vegita-San
10-16-2016, 10:52 PM
If you cut the turtles out of this movie,

And had the same plot, same actors, same moving forward as Bay Turtles one had, would you even give this movie a second glance, even if it was entertaining somehow?

The only reason people gave this thing a chance was because it had a turtles ip on it. if it was meghan fox not as April ONeil, fighting people who happen to be ninjas......

no one would give this movie a second look because it was just so bland of...anything.

LeotheLateBloomer
10-17-2016, 01:20 AM
Dude, Fan4stic was a better movie than this.

Candy Kappa
10-17-2016, 03:56 AM
which means either the weapons where dulled and rather useless anyway, or saki had access to super strong armor material

Nah, it means that PD Leo have no clue on how to use a katana. The blade is so weak and so easy to break or bend, you'd never try to slash through armor, and Japanese armor got nothing on full on metal armor like what PD Shredder was sporting.

It's kinda fitting that the Turtles have no clue on how to use their weapons properly, it's in-canon with Splinter just finding a picture-by-picture book on "ninja fighting". When Shredder was telling Raph that "The rat did not teach you well!" he wasn't taunting him, he was just being truthful. :lol:

Dude, Fan4stic was a better movie than this.

Savage.

IndigoErth
10-17-2016, 03:43 PM
Nah, it means that PD Leo have no clue on how to use a katana.

It's kinda fitting that the Turtles have no clue on how to use their weapons properly, it's in-canon with Splinter just finding a picture-by-picture book on "ninja fighting".
Took the words right out of my mouth. If your home schooling consisted of rat dad reading one single book on the subject, yeah, your know-how is gonna be a bit off.

He does use them against Foot members in the lair, though I don't recall him doing any damage. Donnie does use his bow against people some (and no, the plane is the second film), but I guess that's the safer one to show to keep it kid friendly. I guess Raph uses his defensively a little (which technically is their use anyhow). Mikey however I don't recall ever actually hitting anyone.

Andrew NDB
10-17-2016, 03:51 PM
I'm not saying it was the best of movies or the best TMNT outing, but it was fun, did the characters justice, so I don't have any reason to dislike it.

This kind of reminds me of my next bit of bedtime reading, on its way from the nearest Amazon fulfillment center:

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51ANGk9Fv%2BL._SX368_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

Vegita-San
10-17-2016, 03:58 PM
:-?

I'm not saying it was the best of movies or the best TMNT outing, but it was fun, did the characters justice, so I don't have any reason to dislike it.

Again -internet preface- my opinion, put down the pitch forks - end preface

Anyone who says these movies did the characters justice has to be a new fan who wasn't introduced to the older stuff first.

The characters where 'written' like the writers had only the basics of knowledge. they know there is a guy named Shredder. they know they are turtles. they know they are mutants. they know one is smart, one leads, one is angry, one is dumb. they know the chick is hot but doesn't do much else (if they base it on the 80s)...

the personalities of the characters are cookie cutter basic so much they don't even HAVE personalities. Raph tries to get some at the end of the first movie but it comes so far out of left field, even the yankees would have a hard time seeing that pitch coming at them.

WebLurker
10-17-2016, 09:49 PM
Again -internet preface- my opinion, put down the pitch forks - end preface

Okay, I'll be polite about this.

Anyone who says these movies did the characters justice has to be a new fan who wasn't introduced to the older stuff first.

The characters where 'written' like the writers had only the basics of knowledge. they know there is a guy named Shredder. they know they are turtles. they know they are mutants. they know one is smart, one leads, one is angry, one is dumb. they know the chick is hot but doesn't do much else (if they base it on the 80s)...

the personalities of the characters are cookie cutter basic so much they don't even HAVE personalities. Raph tries to get some at the end of the first movie but it comes so far out of left field, even the yankees would have a hard time seeing that pitch coming at them.

I was a fan of the 2012 cartoon going into this movie (and had seen a few random episodes of the other shows), so I'm not exactly a newbie here.

For the record, what "older stuff first" do you have in mind when you say that the movie doesn't live up to the characterizations? I might have a easier time understanding you if I knew where you were coming from.

CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy
10-17-2016, 09:58 PM
Okay, I'll be polite about this.



I was a fan of the 2012 cartoon going into this movie (and had seen a few random episodes of the other shows), so I'm not exactly a newbie here.

For the record, what "older stuff first" do you have in mind when you say that the movie doesn't live up to the characterizations? I might have a easier time understanding you if I knew where you were coming from.

Let's put it this way.

These movies make NO effort to develop characters or personality AT ALL in their stories. They RELY, like an f'ing CRUTCH, on viewers' prior knowledge of TMNT relationships from prior incarnations (mainly Fred Wolf). It's the highest possible order of laziness and viewers should look past their nostalgia to realize what a huge insult it is.

And if you're a fan of the 2012 cartoon and that's what you came in on, yes, you are, in fact, a newbie. No shame in that. But educate yourself. It's a big wide world of TMNT.

Vegita-San
10-17-2016, 10:02 PM
To me,

When I think TMNT, and the TRUE spirit of what TMNT could be...

I think 4Kids.

It has the right mixture of kick butt action. even with TV limits, it doesn't pull any punches (cutting off shredders head on TV was a total shock). It has the right amount of humor, and more importantly the right amount of heart. It also throws some new in there every now and then to keep you guessing.

When I think what TMNT is, I think of the first movie for more or less those same reasons.

When I think what TMNT could be on the slightly more dialogue side...I think IDW. Comedy side, Fred Wolf.


I know i'm probably wasting my breath hear explaining all this again, as I'm getting those vibes of that when i start to repeat things in a thread....


But when I think of what TMNT ISN'T...

I think Next Mutation. Done by an outside source and limited budget...and people who tried (mostly mirage's side, probably), but didn't quite get it right.

I think The Nick Cartoon Series. It started out OK, but then just got sloppy. not really sure what it wanted to be, and not sure where it's going.

I definitely do not even count the movies as being part of the tmnt universe. The guy who started them knew so little about what made the franchise tick, he wanted to make them aliens. he basically just copy and pasted his transformers formula onto TMNT. The TMNT Movies of '12 are TMNT In Name Only.

As many problems as i have with the new nick show, there ARE cool things in it done RIGHT. Bebop And Rocksteady. Slash. The Fugitoid was Awesome. The basic Krang Drones are cool too (could do with out the primes). The new Splinter, both voice and design is perfect. there IS stuff to defend there as being done right.

With the MOVIES, to ME, at least, there is NOTHING to defend. take away the turtles, rename the other characters, no one would care one bit about this crap. it would have lasted about two weeks in theaters and forgotten soon after.

that's how i feel about it at least. everyone else is free to differ.

CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy
10-17-2016, 10:12 PM
As a Ninja Turtles fan, not everything has to be directed and aimed exactly at MY taste. I don't like Archie or Fred Wolf at all. Or Fast Forward, or whatever.

But it ALL has to be GOOD. If it's NOT well written, then we're all suffering for it.

Platinum Dunes TMNT is not, has not, and never will be good. There is nothing to like about it; there is no reason to support it. You buy tickets or DVDs, you are lining the pockets of executives who laugh at you for liking stupid things and not liking them ENOUGH to really care about them.

Given a choice between being an angry geek or a stupid shill sycophant, I'll take the angry geek option every time.

And I've said enough on it, I know nobody's gonna be convinced. Bowing out now, leaving Andrew to make vegetation jokes. Knock 'em dead, Modeen.

Vegita-San
10-17-2016, 10:14 PM
As a Ninja Turtles fan, not everything has to be directed and aimed exactly at MY taste. I don't like Archie or Fred Wolf at all. Or Fast Forward, or whatever.

But it ALL has to be GOOD. If it's NOT well written, then we're all suffering for it.

Platinum Dunes TMNT is not, has not, and never will be good. There is nothing to like about it; there is no reason to support it. You buy tickets or DVDs, you are lining the pockets of executives who laugh at you for liking stupid things and not liking them ENOUGH to really care about them.

Given a choice between being an angry geek or a stupid shill sycophant, I'll take the angry geek option every time.

And I've said enough on it, I know nobody's gonna be convinced. Bowing out now, leaving Andrew to make vegetation jokes. Knock 'em dead, Modeen.


If all the angry geeks of the world bowed out, the pr oblem would only get worse ;o) Then they'd know no one truly cared to put up a fight for what is right and good and properly written ;o)..

Nothing wrong with being an angry geek, so long as you keep it directed at the movie, or at least keep it constructive :)

Wildcat
10-18-2016, 12:01 AM
Ya know the one reason this gets so much hate is...Michael Bay.

If we never knew about the alien idea or reshoots or even the fact he was involved nobody would have made such a big deal over it. It would have come and gone and no one would have cared enough to complain as much as they do.

I thought it was ok but some of the of the really dumb stuff brought it down for me. If some people like it more than me that's fine. I don't think they're being shill or stupid or that the studio is laughing at them. If they like it for whatever reasons who cares?

It's a movie. I can pretty much guarantee we ALL have movie(s) we enjoy that most considered dumb or bad. It's not that big a deal.

Powder
10-18-2016, 12:59 AM
Ya know the one reason this gets so much hate is...Michael Bay.

This argument holds no weight. If you applied even 2% of the energy in your mind towards reading people's actual, genuine, valid, well thought out complaints, rather than spewing dismissive faithless assumptions every time an opinion is stated, you might make a few friends around here.

People hate the writing, some of the acting/casting, the designs, etc. Michael Bay had very little to do with these films, & they were so far gone from the ground up for him to have made them much worse from their point of conception. Take his name off & nothing changes, literally every issue taken by fans remains 100% valid.

Wildcat
10-18-2016, 01:24 AM
This argument holds no weight. If you applied even 2% of the energy in your mind towards reading people's actual, genuine, valid, well thought out complaints, rather than spewing dismissive faithless assumptions every time an opinion is stated, you might make a few friends around here.

People hate the writing, some of the acting/casting, the designs, etc. Michael Bay had very little to do with these films, & they were so far gone from the ground up for him to have made them much worse from their point of conception. Take his name off & nothing changes, literally every issue taken by fans remains 100% valid.Ive read them. Before and now. I get it, we all get it...big ugly turtles, learning from a book, generic themes, dumb jokes and over the top action is what people hate. (which Bay was part of)

Still doesn't change the fact that people exaggerate it and then crush anyone else who might like it calling them shill and stuff. This is just as stupid.

Let's all list things we like that most others don't. In fact there used to be a topic in the TV/Movies section like that.

Powder
10-18-2016, 01:26 AM
You might argue that some exaggerate the reality of its faults, others might argue that you exaggerate the exaggeration or are far too accepting. It's all subjective. No point going there.

But okay, you do acknowledge some of the things people dislike, that's good! So then you should be aware that Bay wasn't really responsible for much more than the militarization of The Foot, & the car chase type stuff, which are somehow pretty low on the tat totem. Folks hate Appelbaum & Nemec more than any other creative contributor, I assure you.

Wildcat
10-18-2016, 01:47 AM
You might argue that some exaggerate the reality of its faults, others might argue that you exaggerate the exaggeration or are far too accepting. It's all subjective. No point going there.

But okay, you do acknowledge some of the things people dislike, that's good! So then you should be aware that Bay wasn't really responsible for much more than the militarization of The Foot, & the car chase type stuff, which are somehow pretty low on the tat totem. Folks hate Appelbaum & Nemec more than any other creative contributor, I assure you.Well I'm gonna assume you never read the entire post before cause I never claimed I was one who really liked it anyway. I said the really dumb stuff is what brought it down for me. I don't own the DVD either. If that makes you feel any better.

Far too accepting? Nah. I just don't view the the movie industry through the amazing amount of negativity most others seem to do. They're movies. I always try to at least see where some effort was made. Some I really like, some are just ok. Others I don't care much either way. I don't think it's that a big a deal.

Candy Kappa
10-18-2016, 05:40 AM
I was fine with Bay being attached to the movie when it was announced, it was the revealing of the Turtle designs that made me jump ship.

WebLurker
10-18-2016, 09:39 AM
Platinum Dunes TMNT is not, has not, and never will be good. There is nothing to like about it; there is no reason to support it. You buy tickets or DVDs, you are lining the pockets of executives who laugh at you for liking stupid things and not liking them ENOUGH to really care about them.

Considering I had a good time at the movie, I hardly think that I was taken advantage of.

Given a choice between being an angry geek or a stupid shill sycophant, I'll take the angry geek option every time.

I'll take the people who are honest about their opinions, whether or not they're the popular one.

Vegita-San
10-18-2016, 10:21 AM
Far too accepting? Nah. I just don't view the the movie industry through the amazing amount of negativity most others seem to do. They're movies. I always try to at least see where some effort was made. Some I really like, some are just ok. Others I don't care much either way. I don't think it's that a big a deal.

Dude, there are reasons for this.


When companies ignore long time fans, and in some cases, spit in their faces over and over again(meghan Fox, Feig), Fans are going to rebell and see things negatively. at least the ones who have the will power to stand up against something they loved and say 'that's not right!'

All these reboots arn't being done for the fans. they are being done for anew generation that the studio for some reason HOPES will become NEW fans (That they can oddly ignore in ten years for the next generation).

The problem is that this new generation isn't loyal to anything and will move on to the next big thing as soon as they tire of what's current and popular.

Case in Point Star Trek.

Enterprise was supposed to attract a NEW generation of Star Trek fans, and it failed miserably. they wnted to seperate so much from the brand, they used some pop radio sounding song as the theme, and dropped star trek from it's title. By the time they paid attention to the fans in season 4 it was far too late and felt like pandering.

Did Paramount learn their lesson? nope. They did it again with JJ trek. and that grand adventure started to fail in the second movie. meanwhile, the loyal friend and true star trek fans are growing more pissed by the day, and there is a chance you will never win them back into the fold.

So, who exactly wins here?

not the fan base. you divided and conquered them. you have the people who will defend blandness for whatever reason. and you have the people willing to trash you for that same blandness. then you have the casuals who will like it for two hours and move on with their lives.

One would think, especially after this disaster of a summer season, that hollywood dwould learn this isn't a good idea and go back to catering to the old fans.... but... probably not.


Especially when people see it as 'no big deal'...you'll continue to get dreck.


Ya know the one reason this gets so much hate is...Michael Bay.

If we never knew about the alien idea or reshoots or even the fact he was involved nobody would have made such a big deal over it. It would have come and gone and no one would have cared enough to complain as much as they do.




IF it wasn't bay, we probably would have gotten another run of the mill director with a different mediocre effort and people would have hated it just as much.

The problem is that people getting these big tentpole franchises with built in fan bases either out right hate the job they are given, don't care enough to take it seriously, or don't bother to understand it....or in some cases, use it to get their dream job later.

that right there is also part of the problem.

Andrew NDB
10-18-2016, 10:59 AM
Enterprise was supposed to attract a NEW generation of Star Trek fans, and it failed miserably.

This is revisionist history. And false. The actual ratings of Enterprise were pretty far from bad, and very consistent. They just weren't getting any better, and Enterprise was very costly to make compared to the rest of their lineup.

By the time they paid attention to the fans in season 4 it was far too late and felt like pandering.

Season 4 was pretty bad because it felt like fan-pandering. Because it was. Every episode was, "Look how this ties to this episode of TOS, or TNG" while ceasing even trying to be its own thing. By the time we're spending two episodes with Noonien Soongh's grandpa or whatever it's just like, "Aw, c'mon, guys..."

Season 3 of Enterprise, I would maintain, as a collective whole remains the best Trek I've ever seen in any media.

Vegita-San
10-18-2016, 11:05 AM
Season 4 was pretty bad because it felt like fan-pandering. Because it was. Every episode was, "Look how this ties to this episode of TOS, or TNG" while ceasing even trying to be its own thing. By the time we're spending two episodes with Noonien Soongh's grandpa or whatever it's just like, "Aw, c'mon, guys..."

Season 3 of Enterprise, I would maintain, as a collective whole remains the best Trek I've ever seen in any media.

Apart from Angry Archer, I'd have to agree with this. IT felt like it was gaining new ground and exploring new areas not seen before.

Season 4 felt like stuff they SHOULD have spread out across 7 years crammed into about 10 episodes.

That whole Mirror universe thing was just pure crap and an excuse to bring the 1701 bridge onto screen.

THe stupid augments saga and the shot for shot remake of kahns last moments was a big groaner..

I think the only reason the fans liked season 4 is because it felt like they where recognizing past history.

Andrew NDB
10-18-2016, 11:11 AM
Apart from Angry Archer, I'd have to agree with this. IT felt like it was gaining new ground and exploring new areas not seen before.

Season 4 felt like stuff they SHOULD have spread out across 7 years crammed into about 10 episodes.

That whole Mirror universe thing was just pure crap and an excuse to bring the 1701 bridge onto screen.

THe stupid augments saga and the shot for shot remake of kahns last moments was a big groaner..

I think the only reason the fans liked season 4 is because it felt like they where recognizing past history.

I wouldn't have minded if nuggets of season 4 had been spread out throughout the seasons... but as is, it's just a nostalgia hammer bludgeoning you with every passing episode. It was too blatant, and I don't like being told by TPTB what I'm supposed to like and what is supposed to be placating me when I was perfectly fine with the way it was, especially coming fresh off the pitch perfect season 3.

That said, admittedly it was kinda neat to see the fate of the Defiant from "Mirror, Mirror."

WebLurker
10-18-2016, 07:05 PM
All these reboots arn't being done for the fans. they are being done for anew generation that the studio for some reason HOPES will become NEW fans (That they can oddly ignore in ten years for the next generation).

Well, a fanbase does need new members, otherwise it dies off. Also, in some cases, the people involved in the making were fans of the source material. Also, there is the odd reboot that both old and new fans like. Also, many of the "reboots" today are adaptations of materials that already have a big franchise with multiple interpretations already in existence.

The problem is that this new generation isn't loyal to anything and will move on to the next big thing as soon as they tire of what's current and popular.

That makes no sense. New fanbases are being formed all the time. Also, Marvel vs. DC? Star Trek vs. Star Wars? Those debates are still going on today. (I prefer Marvel over DC and love both Trek and Wars.)

Case in Point Star Trek.

Enterprise was supposed to attract a NEW generation of Star Trek fans, and it failed miserably. they wnted to seperate so much from the brand, they used some pop radio sounding song as the theme, and dropped star trek from it's title. By the time they paid attention to the fans in season 4 it was far too late and felt like pandering.

The pop song had nothing to do with the actual quality of the show (and I've never gotten what was so wrong with it in the first place). Secondly, the show has been reevaluated a lot after the fact, with a plenty of netizens going on record that the show was better than it was given credit for. Also, ENT was not a remake.

Did Paramount learn their lesson? nope. They did it again with JJ trek. and that grand adventure started to fail in the second movie. meanwhile, the loyal friend and true star trek fans are growing more pissed by the day, and there is a chance you will never win them back into the fold.

First of all, there are a lot of true fans who like or love the Kelvin timeline series (and to be frank, the whole "false fan" thing is one of the worse lies ever invented for modern fandoms of anything).

Secondly, while I didn't like the first two reboot movies at all, I think the third one was a return to form, so, while I'll always prefer the prime universe Star Trek, I'm optimistic about the series future.

So, who exactly wins here?

not the fan base. you divided and conquered them. you have the people who will defend blandness for whatever reason. and you have the people willing to trash you for that same blandness. then you have the casuals who will like it for two hours and move on with their lives.


Sounds like business as usual for fan bases in the age of internet and polarity in discussions. Also, I don't think Star Trek is a good example of a broken fanbase. Try Star Wars. There is a lot of angry fans and disagreement over the creative decisions made with the new materials.

The problem is that people getting these big tentpole franchises with built in fan bases either out right hate the job they are given, don't care enough to take it seriously, or don't bother to understand it....or in some cases, use it to get their dream job later.

Not always. See: Spider-Man (Raimi trilogy), MCU (esp. the Captain America stuff), Star Trek Beyond, Peter Jackson's Middle-earth movies, post-Disney Star Wars.



This is revisionist history. And false. The actual ratings of Enterprise were pretty far from bad, and very consistent. They just weren't getting any better, and Enterprise was very costly to make compared to the rest of their lineup.

Agreed.


Season 4 was pretty bad because it felt like fan-pandering. Because it was. Every episode was, "Look how this ties to this episode of TOS, or TNG" while ceasing even trying to be its own thing. By the time we're spending two episodes with Noonien Soongh's grandpa or whatever it's just like, "Aw, c'mon, guys..."

Season 3 of Enterprise, I would maintain, as a collective whole remains the best Trek I've ever seen in any media.

ENT Season 3 wasn't bad (what I've been able to see of it), but I think TOS is the most re-watchable series in the franchise, TNG is my favorite show of them all, and that DS9 was the best written, executed, and consistent series. (DS9 also did multiple episode story arcs and war stuff better than ENT did, IMHO.)

As far as season 4 goes, I would point out that the previous seasons also did their fair share of TOS prequels, that part of the point of ENT was to show how we got to TOS, and that many of the prequels also stand up as stories on their own, even without knowing what came next. But, your mileage may vary.

Wildcat
10-18-2016, 11:59 PM
Also a lot of movies that are not even based on popular fandoms do not turn out that good either but people don't complain much about those or even care after a first watch.

But have it be part of a popular fandom then all the usual complaints roll in like cash-grab, studio doesn't care etc. It's surprising some of the things people say.

Like really, you think studios care about ripping fans off? Pretty sure they want these movies to be good...ya know, so they keep making a profit. They don't always turn out good but that's for various other reasons.

It's kinda funny the way people talk. I picture some Mr. Burns type character in the dark somewhere plotting to make really bad movies with dollar signs in his eyes :lol: That's what some of you visualize right?

IndigoErth
10-19-2016, 05:39 PM
Non-fandom stuff is understandable if no one cares if it's bad. Nobody has any existing emotional attachment to it so it doesn't usually matter. If the Turtles were something new and existed only in these films, no one would give a damn either.

Take beloved characters who have been around for over 30 years and don't be mindful enough to do right by it and yeah, it's also understandable that many people are going to take it personally. These guys have been a part of many people's lives for most or all of their lives... at that point doing wrong by it is almost like doing wrong by family.


Mr. Burns, I mean Bay, annoys me now, but before these films I had close to no knowledge of who he was other than having heard the name now and then. So I did not go into this with any desire to hate on him or the films because of him. But now that I'm more aware of this cash grabber... :trolleye: Just an irritating manchild who apparently wants to insert his same old "been done to death" nonsense, which sucks, though imo the writers deserve more criticism then they've gotten seeing as how they came up with the lion's share of dumb ideas. And the first director, who was shamefully clueless about the characters even after spending months making the thing.

Vegita-San
10-19-2016, 06:09 PM
Mr. Burns, I mean Bay, annoys me now, but before these films I had close to no knowledge of who he was other than having heard the name now and then. So I did not go into this with any desire to hate on him or the films because of him. But now that I'm more aware of this cash grabber... :trolleye: Just an irritating manchild who apparently wants to insert his same old "been done to death" nonsense, which sucks, though imo the writers deserve more criticism then they've gotten seeing as how they came up with the lion's share of dumb ideas. And the first director, who was shamefully clueless about the characters even after spending months making the thing.

Pretty much. I had not seen the transformers movies, since i am not a transformers fan. but the stuff i heard about them was enough to make me dread these coming movies, and the pre release material and leaked info was enough to downright make me HATE it.

These directors are more or less friends of Bay (the first one i think was at least, not sure about the second). so i'd wager heavily on bay calling all the shots being the financial provider of this thing and one of the bigger name players in it. He's kind of like paul feig in a sense.. Arrogant, boastful, and not very knowledgeable or caring. But where feig tries to make potty mouthed 'girl power' films, bay tries to go for the male side of that audience.

Both are just as lack luster.

By saying movies are 'watchable' now, is a pretty poor defense for a film. Bad, or otherwise. not more than 5 years ago, watchable would have been 'terrible'. but i feel people are so tired of negativity these days, that they force themselves to say 'this movie was good' even though they secretly want to trash it. The fact that these type of people exist are why movie producers turn into 'Mr.Burns' types and don't even HAVE to try and make it good. people will defend it anyway.


that's what i believe anyway. as for the rest, going to have to be a case of 'agree to disagree in some issues.

Wildcat
10-20-2016, 12:23 AM
Non-fandom stuff is understandable if no one cares if it's bad. Nobody has any existing emotional attachment to it so it doesn't usually matter. If the Turtles were something new and existed only in these films, no one would give a damn either.

Take beloved characters who have been around for over 30 years and don't be mindful enough to do right by it and yeah, it's also understandable that many people are going to take it personally. These guys have been a part of many people's lives for most or all of their lives... at that point doing wrong by it is almost like doing wrong by family.


Mr. Burns, I mean Bay, annoys me now, but before these films I had close to no knowledge of who he was other than having heard the name now and then. So I did not go into this with any desire to hate on him or the films because of him. But now that I'm more aware of this cash grabber... :trolleye: Just an irritating manchild who apparently wants to insert his same old "been done to death" nonsense, which sucks, though imo the writers deserve more criticism then they've gotten seeing as how they came up with the lion's share of dumb ideas. And the first director, who was shamefully clueless about the characters even after spending months making the thing.I know fandom based movies have more of an emotional attachment but that's kinda my point. It's unfair to not hold all movies to the same standard then. Why only freak out because one particular version of a fandom turns out bad?

Im a huge Sonic the Hedgehog fan. I love almost everything about it. There's a live action movie in the works which I've always wanted. If it turns out bad or not what I expected sure I'll be disappointed but I'm not going to feel personally insulted or that filmmakers for some reason did it on purpose. That's just silly.

I absolutely hate the term cash-grab. Literally every movie is made for profit. You really think Michael Bay or Platinum Dunes cared that much to get a TMNT "cash-grab"? They'd be perfectly fine without the turtles.

Powder
10-20-2016, 12:38 AM
I absolutely hate the term cash-grab. Literally every movie is made for profit. You really think Michael Bay or Platinum Dunes cared that much to get a TMNT "cash-grab"? They'd be perfectly fine without the turtles.

The term cash-grab is used when a film doesn't feel like it was made with the best of intentions (i.e. respecting the source material, pleasing long time fans, creating something that can stand tall among other iterations, etc.), or if the people involved for the most part seem like they only took the job for the paycheck.

Wildcat
10-20-2016, 12:48 AM
I know what it means. I hate it because it gives off such a cynical vibe towards whatever movie being talked about.

Powder
10-20-2016, 01:04 AM
Well, what you said didn't make it seem that way. At any rate, the business is exactly that, a business. It's not so much cynical as it is realistic.

Wildcat
10-20-2016, 01:17 AM
Oh that's why I put "cash-grab" in quotes. Asking if Bay/PD really wanted TMNT for easy profit.

Well not every movie has the best team behind it but the term gets thrown around a lot. I think people read too much into filmmakers/studios motives.

IndigoErth
10-20-2016, 03:24 AM
Asking if Bay/PD really wanted TMNT for easy profit.
What's their ratio of original films vs remakes/reboots (or otherwise related to existing properties)?

Existing beloved properties are inherently easy money, at least for the first when no one knows better. And green lighting the second within two or three days of the first one premiering... yeah.

Wildcat
10-20-2016, 03:56 AM
Sure existing popular properties are more desirable. I have no idea how they acquire properties. In this case did Nick choose PD? They greenlit the sequel because the first one did better at the time. A lot of movies get sequels pretty fast if they do well.

The last Chucky movie which was direct-to-video got another movie greenlit like a month later back in 2013. The writer/director announced there'd be another on twitter.

My issue is when people start painting the "Mr. Burns" picture out of things. Just because a studio is happy to get a popular property does not mean it's because they have ulterior motives to churn out a crappy movie.

WebLurker
10-20-2016, 10:47 AM
My issue is when people start painting the "Mr. Burns" picture out of things. Just because a studio is happy to get a popular property does not mean it's because they have ulterior motives to churn out a crappy movie.

Here, here.

Vegita-San
10-20-2016, 11:39 AM
I know what it means. I hate it because it gives off such a cynical vibe towards whatever movie being talked about.

i will never understand this sentiment.

if it looks terrible, it's bound to be terrible. if it looks good, it's bound to be good.
If it looks like it was done by someone who doesn't care, it probably is.
Why is this considered a BAD thing to be honest about how something looks these days?

sometimes a property has been around long enough, with enough good material out to instantly be able to judge what is going to be bad.

the fact that some people, for whatever reason don't want to judge a movie, because it hurts the movies feelings, or the people who apparently tried to do a good job on it have good intentions just baffles me.


Chances are the lower echelon folks working on a movie don't go out to make it look bad. i will give you that. The Prop Makers, the CGI artists. the lights and grips.

But there is every bit a chance that the higher ups have that intention. Hell, they made a bad Fantastic Four movie just to show they are still doing something with the license...

Some movies these days feel like they are done by commitee. We have 'X number of properties'. We want to Revive Property Y, so here, you take this. We want to Revive Property B, you take that....see what you can do with it.

WebLurker
10-20-2016, 03:19 PM
if it looks terrible, it's bound to be terrible. if it looks good, it's bound to be good.
If it looks like it was done by someone who doesn't care, it probably is.
Why is this considered a BAD thing to be honest about how something looks these days?

Well, that's only part of the story. A good movie can have a bad trailer, and vice versa. A worn-out trope can be fodder for a good story under the right author. It's only fair to judge the final product by what it is itself, not by your impressions of it beforehand.

sometimes a property has been around long enough, with enough good material out to instantly be able to judge what is going to be bad.

See the previous comment for why I don't believe that.

the fact that some people, for whatever reason don't want to judge a movie, because it hurts the movies feelings, or the people who apparently tried to do a good job on it have good intentions just baffles me.

In this case, I honestly think that the movie doesn't deserve the whining it's been getting. (I'm not arguing that it's a masterpiece, but it's a fun blockbuster and doesn't do anything really bad to the source material beyond just having a by-the-numbers plot.)

Also, I think that the devil should be always given his due.


Chances are the lower echelon folks working on a movie don't go out to make it look bad. i will give you that. The Prop Makers, the CGI artists. the lights and grips.

But there is every bit a chance that the higher ups have that intention. Hell, they made a bad Fantastic Four movie just to show they are still doing something with the license...

Some movies these days feel like they are done by commitee. We have 'X number of properties'. We want to Revive Property Y, so here, you take this. We want to Revive Property B, you take that....see what you can do with it.

Maybe, but with these films with big fans, sometimes I think the complaints by the fans have more to do with expectations than the actual quality. Case in point, some of complaints about Spider-Man 3 were solely about changes from the source material, not the film's actual quality.

LeotheLateBloomer
10-20-2016, 06:04 PM
The big thing is that does this 'new take' on TMNT actually work? The turtles, you hardly got to know and came off as one note. Not to mention that their personalities were typecasted.

The designs were also unappealing. How anyone can defend a Donatello that looks like Jar Jar Binks wearing Steve Urkel glasses cosplaying as a Ghostbuster is beyond me. Their sizes are a huge (no pun intended) turnoff for me because we don't get to see choreographic fights in a movie called "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles". Combat involves tackling, shoulder charging, and deflecting bullets which are not what the turtles are known for. It's like if you made Batman as huge as Bane or Killer Croc and displays no martial arts and instead fought like a brute.

Vegita-San
10-20-2016, 06:19 PM
The big thing is that does this 'new take' on TMNT actually work? The turtles, you hardly got to know and came off as one note. Not to mention that their personalities were typecasted.

The designs were also unappealing. How anyone can defend a Donatello that looks like Jar Jar Binks wearing Steve Urkel glasses cosplaying as a Ghostbuster is beyond me. Their sizes are a huge (no pun intended) turnoff for me because we don't get to see choreographic fights in a movie called "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles". Combat involves tackling, shoulder charging, and deflecting bullets which are not what the turtles are known for. It's like if you made Batman as huge as Bane or Killer Croc and displays no martial arts and instead fought like a brute.


yep, but all this thoughtful stuff usually gets deflected with a simple 'but the movie was ok. wasn't terrible, wasn't good.. but watchable.'


it's like the new people don't come in as dedicated fans like the old people, and simply want to waste 2 hours in enjoyment...

that's all well and fine so long as you don't just dismiss the comments of the old guard with a wave of the hand. that's what the producers of the new movie we hate did ;o)

Vegita-San
10-20-2016, 06:22 PM
Well, that's only part of the story. A good movie can have a bad trailer, and vice versa. A worn-out trope can be fodder for a good story under the right author. It's only fair to judge the final product by what it is itself, not by your impressions of it beforehand.



Maybe, but with these films with big fans, sometimes I think the complaints by the fans have more to do with expectations than the actual quality. Case in point, some of complaints about Spider-Man 3 were solely about changes from the source material, not the film's actual quality.


Calling all constructive criticism whining is why andrew keeps on posting plant pictures ;o).

Expectations and quality go hand in hand. we expect it to be good. and, using our free will, are able to judge all the pre release material and know that we don't expect it to BE good. usually people's instinct on pre release material are right on the money.

Hence, why tmnt 2 took almost a 50% drop in profits. people learned from the first horrible move not to go see the second horrible movie because they expected it to be bad. and by all accounts are right.

WebLurker
10-20-2016, 10:47 PM
The big thing is that does this 'new take' on TMNT actually work? The turtles, you hardly got to know and came off as one note. Not to mention that their personalities were typecasted.

Business as usual, in other words? Okay, joking aside, I found the characterizations to be right on the money. I will concede that there wasn't a lot of character development in the first one and some of them got less limelight (there's more to the team than just Raph, people), but they got the basics right, IMHO.

The designs were also unappealing.

Fair enough. I will concede that I like the designs from the 2012 cartoon and 2007 movie far better. However, I think once the movie gets rolling, they're okay (it is live action, a turtle man probably wouldn't look as cute as a cartoon character!)

How anyone can defend a Donatello that looks like Jar Jar Binks wearing Steve Urkel glasses cosplaying as a Ghostbuster is beyond me.

I don't see the Jar Jar connection and actually liked the glasses and Ghostbusters pack; each of the characters had their own style of clothing choices and accessories. It made them each stand out and matched their personalities. That was the main strength of the design, IMHO. (Now, I do like that the TV show versions are just in the classic basics of the belts and wraps, but for the movie, I think the more detailed clothing worked.

Their sizes are a huge (no pun intended) turnoff for me because we don't get to see choreographic fights in a movie called "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles". Combat involves tackling, shoulder charging, and deflecting bullets which are not what the turtles are known for. It's like if you made Batman as huge as Bane or Killer Croc and displays no martial arts and instead fought like a brute.

Fair enough if you don't like the size (and I will concede that that's a point that I'm not overly fond of), but I loved the movie's action scenes, which had some of the classic Turtle fighting in it.

yep, but all this thoughtful stuff usually gets deflected with a simple 'but the movie was ok. wasn't terrible, wasn't good.. but watchable.'

Well, the preceding comments are more enlightening than some I've heard.


it's like the new people don't come in as dedicated fans like the old people, and simply want to waste 2 hours in enjoyment...

Umm, people who like the movie (or were introduced to the franchise through the movie) are as legitimate fans as ones introduced through the original comics.

that's all well and fine so long as you don't just dismiss the comments of the old guard with a wave of the hand. that's what the producers of the new movie we hate did ;o)

I seriously doubt that. In fact the moviemakers did listen to the fans, which is why we have an Oroku Saki Shredder and the Turtles aren't aliens.

Calling all constructive criticism whining is why andrew keeps on posting plant pictures ;o).

If people don't like the movie, fair enough, esp. if they can explain why. I don't have as much patience for people who state that there's nothing good in the movie whatsoever, since that's hyperbole, at best. (When a movie gets chainsawed apart as bad, fine, but can't we also give the devil his due, and also praise the movie for what it did right?)

Expectations and quality go hand in hand. we expect it to be good. and, using our free will, are able to judge all the pre release material and know that we don't expect it to BE good. usually people's instinct on pre release material are right on the money.

Sure, it's fine to have an opinion on the trailers, but those are just to sell the movies and don't prove how good or bad the film is. I mean, Star Wars: A New Hope, Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan, The Princess Bride, and Star Trek Beyond had awful trailers, but were good movies. I know a lot of people thought that the trailers for Spider-Man 3 made the movie look good, but were not happy with the film itself (I thought it was good, but I will concede that the trailers made the movie look more dramatic than it actually was). Based on the trailers, I think Rogue One looks awesome, but who knows? That could be wrong. I won't know for sure until I see the movie.

Hence, why tmnt 2 took almost a 50% drop in profits. people learned from the first horrible move not to go see the second horrible movie because they expected it to be bad. and by all accounts are right.

Having seen Out of the Shadows, I think it was actually an improvement over the original. The tone (drawn from the '80s cartoon) was consistent (the original seemed to flop between being really goofy to trying to be more serious and kind of missing the mark on both), lot of decent casting, and the Turtles had more screen time and a more emotional-based character arc (with the purple ooze). So, while it's probably fair to say that the first one affected the box office, I'm, not entirely sure that the sequel quite deserved it.

(As always, your mileage may vary.)

Vegita-San
10-20-2016, 11:28 PM
Umm, people who like the movie (or were introduced to the franchise through the movie) are as legitimate fans as ones introduced through the original comics.

I seriously doubt that. In fact the moviemakers did listen to the fans, which is why we have an Oroku Saki Shredder and the Turtles aren't aliens.


f people don't like the movie, fair enough, esp. if they can explain why. I don't have as much patience for people who state that there's nothing good in the movie whatsoever, since that's hyperbole, at best. (When a movie gets chainsawed apart as bad, fine, but can't we also give the devil his due, and also praise the movie for what it did right?)

Sure, it's fine to have an opinion on the trailers, but those are just to sell the movies and don't prove how good or bad the film is. I won't know for sure until I see the movie.


(As always, your mileage may vary.)

First one -

Not if most new fans i see posting online call mikey mickey and raph ralph ;o).I've found that most newer fans don't care about the older stuff, and tend to dismiss it outright. i can't speak for all older fans, but that tends to make me dismiss them out right. especially when this newer stuff made for the newer generation is more concerned with winning over new fans than pleasing old ones.


-I'm pretty sure Bay didn't care enough to listen. i'm almost 90% certain that was someone at nick who woke up and stopped bay from rammaging the turtles like he did transformers. just like someone at sony finally woke up and stopped feig from doing what he did to ghostbusters and added in more classic references to try and win fans back. by then, just like turtles 2, it was too little too late.

- that is definitely your thoughts to have...and you are free to have them. but if long time turtle fans, who have been there through either 88 or 84 and have seen everything from good to bad...... and the majority say 'these movies are NOT turtle movies...' it's hard to dismiss that. and if you do, it just shows you only care about the newer stuff.
Also fine, but don't dismiss the people who care about the older stuff like it doesn't matter.


Exactly. pre release material is there to sell the movie. if you don't like what you see, chance are you think it's going to be bad.

Getting tired of talking in circles, so in this case we are going to have to agree to dis agree.

ToTheNines
10-22-2016, 06:56 AM
Wowwwww. Wow.

I tried to watch this with an open mind and a positive attitude, but had to close the window in anger when he said the "paramilitary Foot Clan is cool".

**** that guy.

Vegita-San
10-22-2016, 11:40 AM
you can't say an opinion likethat these days. it'll violate the safe spaces of people who hate negative things being said about movies. trust me these people exist ;o).

LeotheLateBloomer
10-22-2016, 12:16 PM
I don't see the Jar Jar connection and actually liked the glasses and Ghostbusters pack; each of the characters had their own style of clothing choices and accessories. It made them each stand out and matched their personalities. That was the main strength of the design, IMHO. (Now, I do like that the TV show versions are just in the classic basics of the belts and wraps, but for the movie, I think the more detailed clothing worked.

The Nick cartoon distinguished them enough to tell them apart. In these films, the junk that they wear make them look too busy and did not compliment their designs. They were typecasted.

Fair enough if you don't like the size (and I will concede that that's a point that I'm not overly fond of), but I loved the movie's action scenes, which had some of the classic Turtle fighting in it.

But there were no "classic" Turtle fight scenes. I just said that they just tackle and shoulder charge their foes. No martial arts used against them. The foot being made into a terrorist group also gives them less of an advantage against the turtles. They're not a threat to them whereas in the 1990 film, they got the upperhand on Raph and the rest of them afterwards.

WebLurker
10-22-2016, 02:36 PM
The Nick cartoon distinguished them enough to tell them apart. In these films, the junk that they wear make them look too busy and did not compliment their designs. They were typecasted.

Not sure I agree, but fair enough.



But there were no "classic" Turtle fight scenes. I just said that they just tackle and shoulder charge their foes. No martial arts used against them. The foot being made into a terrorist group also gives them less of an advantage against the turtles. They're not a threat to them whereas in the 1990 film, they got the upperhand on Raph and the rest of them afterwards.

As far as fighting goes, what about Turtles Vs. Shredder on the rooftop?

As far as the Foot goes, aren't they usually as easy or hard to beat as the plot demands?

Candy Kappa
10-22-2016, 02:46 PM
As far as fighting goes, what about Turtles Vs. Shredder on the rooftop?

A boring snooze-fest where the Turtles have to avoid flying eletro-magical-magnetic blades, and a lot of flashy "dancing" involved.

Vegita-San
10-22-2016, 03:10 PM
A boring snooze-fest where the Turtles have to avoid flying eletro-magical-magnetic blades, and a lot of flashy "dancing" involved.

and shredder/turtles that are not only so badly designed, but so badly fought that it's hard to tell what happens at times IIRC.

A problem with most modern fast paced action films BTW.

They are probably all CGI bythat point too, so it's hardly live action anymore.


I really hope in the next reboot, Nick does it right.

Rubber suits. REAL Shredder costumes. CGI Turtle faces. give it a more real feel than badly done CGI can't replicate.