[asfaloth12]

Originally Posted by ToTheNines

Again, you can think what you want. But you're trying to discredit the creator because you didn't like something.

Well, I'm glad you're open to other views. However, I don't need to "discredit" the creator. He managed that quite well on his own when he dropped a turd, attempted to polish it up, and tried to pass it off as the series "finale".
And I've explained multiple times that this is more than just "disliking" the arc. If it was only that, I would be disappointed for some time, yes. But, then, I would move on and ignore it (as I do with the latter seasons of the 2003 series). This arc, on the other hand, blatantly contradicts canon. I'm still not ignoring that.

Originally Posted by ToTheNines

So yeah, think what you want. Just don't tell me your headcanon is official.

Depends on what you mean by official. Nick has said the arc is not canon. But, I would argue that the arc itself contradicts canon so badly that it cannot possibly be canon.
But, if you want to headcanon it as the "true" ending, go right ahead. I respect other people's views.

On that note, this is from an individual who has been following the debate, but is not a forum member, and wanted to add their perspective :
http://ea-solinas.tumblr.com/post/16...ctual-property
The full post is at the link, but here are some some excerpts:
"I’ve seen people explaining that it’s ridiculous to suggest that Viacom/Nickelodeon get to determine canon, because it would be like Stephen King’s publisher telling him that a book of the Dark Tower series isn’t canon. That is false equivalence, because the DT series is King’s intellectual property. He made up the story, the characters, the world, the concept, and the connections to other things that stemmed entirely from his brain and to which he holds the rights. Publishing them doesn’t take away those rights, and therefore the publisher does not have the authority to determine canon.

The situation of Viacom/Nickelodeon and the TMNT is ENTIRELY different. It’s more akin to Stephen King being hired to write a book set in Middle-Earth starring established Silmarillion characters, the rights of which belong to the Tolkien Estate. If King were hired to write such a book, did write it and published it, but the Tolkien Estate stated that it was not canon… that would be the end of it. It wouldn’t be canon because they have the authority to determine what material is canon or not. They own the intellectual property rights, not King.
Viacom/Nickelodeon are not just releasing someone else’s vision for the TMNT. They actually bought the complete rights to the entire franchise. Not just the comics or the old TV show, THE FRANCHISE. Everything. It is theirs. That gives them the right to decide what is canon."
......
"In case I need to explain it, intellectual property can be sold, which is what Peter Laird did. That bestows not only the right to publish/produce material, but to decide what is canon. Peter Laird said as much last year

http://peterlairdstmntblog.blogspot....40688557061094

when he stated that the canonicity of certain guest Mirage issues is only his “opinion,” and should be asked of the “new owners” of the franchise. And that’s the man who [expletive] co-created the Turtles and their world in the FIRST PLACE, not just a guy they hired to produce the show. He knows what selling intellectual property means: it means surrendering your right to authority.
Which brings us to Ciro Nieli: he does not and never had intellectual property rights to the Turtles franchise. He WORKED for the people who do. The characters do not originate with him. The concept does not originate with him. The world does not originate with him. If they had, he would have rights to determine what was done with them unless he sold those rights to someone else, as Laird did. But he didn’t create them, and he didn’t buy the rights, so he doesn’t determine what is canon.

So comparing him to Stephen King is completely wrong. King writes his own stories with his own characters and his own worlds, and unless he sells the rights, that material belongs to him. Nieli? He was GRANTED the ability to make a version of a property that belonged to others.

It’s the difference between playing in someone else’s sandbox and building your own. You have the rights to make your own rules in your own sandbox. Not so with others’."

Originally Posted by Cyndaquilfan123

So wait, you’re saying the Finale itself was not canon?

Nickelodeon says it's not. As to whether or not it is the true ending, that is completely up to you. I would point out that it contradicts canon, but if you like it as the "true" ending, I won't judge your headcanons

Originally Posted by matteso586

Did you forget about Renet? And claims that the Turtles are going to become legendary heroes? So Mutant Apocalypse is obviously an alternate universe.

Obviously.

Originally Posted by NinjaPug

I'm amazed at the leaps people are making to discredit the finale as being canon just because they didn't like it.

There is no need to "discredit" the Mutant Apocalypse arc (I refuse to call it the finale, at least on purpose). It contradicted canon; it only works as some form of an alternate reality/future. What's amazing is how some people are trying so desperately to find some way to force this dumpster fire masquerading as a "finale" to fit into the canon storyline.

Originally Posted by matteso586

I'm just using logic that Mutant Apocalypse is set in an alternate timeline. What more do you guys want?

You're using logic. That right there is the problem.