Do you consider TMNT 2007 apart of the 90s live action movie universe?

[Sobble]

I think it belongs somewhere after TMNT 2003 before fast forward before back to the sewers

[ABrown]

Originally Posted by MsMarvelDuckie

In all, having a few props that are SIMILAR to thinfs from the trilogy movies is hardly a basis for saying it's the same continuity. It's more likely an elseworld that had SOME of the same events take place.

This right here. And like how at the beginning of the film, the voice mentions that they had defeated their enemy The Shredder. LOTS of different versions of the TMNT eventually defeated their version of The Shredder, that doesn't necessarily connect the 07 film to any of them.

[dawwe]

I see them as seperate versions but I do see why some people would see it as a continuation with the Shredder helmet and all that. It might even have been planned to to be a part of that universe.

[Andrew NDB]

There is no "might." We know it was because the writer/director told us it was. Over and over and over again, in interviews and press releases alike.

Were there some added visual cues to make fans of the 4Kids show feel at home, too? Sure. But that's all on that front.

[dawwe]

Well there you go. I guess I never read those.

[ABrown]

Here's the thing, as far as I'm concerned, it's not up to the creators of the 2007 film to decide whether the movie is a continuation of the first three movies, any more than is it up to the creators of the first Nickelodeon cartoon to decide whether or not Krang (from the original TMNT cartoon) exists in their universe. If I go and make a film and claim that it's a sequel to the 2007 film, does that make it so? No. Only the creators of the original product can claim it to be a sequel of what they created.

EDIT: Actually, upon further thought, this is incorrect. What I should've said is that only the original creator can claim something to be canon, not in-continuity.

[MsMarvelDuckie]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

There is no "might." We know it was because the writer/director told us it was. Over and over and over again, in interviews and press releases alike.

Were there some added visual cues to make fans of the 4Kids show feel at home, too? Sure. But that's all on that front.

And yet, for a movie "supposedly" in the same continuity, it has NOTHING to connect it. Which means the director was just blowing smoke out his @$$ to connect it to something that it ITERALLY had nothing to do with in-universe. Easter eggs in a single scene do not a continuity make. If they wanted it to be in continuity, they should have WRITTEN it that way. They didn't.

[Redeemer]

Originally Posted by ABrown

Here's the thing, as far as I'm concerned, it's not up to the creators of the 2007 film to decide whether the movie is a continuation of the first three movies, any more than is it up to the creators of the first Nickelodeon cartoon to decide whether or not Krang (from the original TMNT cartoon) exists in their universe. If I go and make a film and claim that it's a sequel to the 2007 film, does that make it so? No. Only the creators of the original product can claim it to be a sequel of what they created.

So if J.J. Abrams says that Last Jedi is not a sequel to The force awakens then that means it not a sequel?????

I just don't agree. If the director says that this movie was a sequel to the original live action trilogy then I think it is. Unless Laird were to say other wise, bc (I think he had a hand to some degree in both films.)

Originally Posted by MsMarvelDuckie

And yet, for a movie "supposedly" in the same continuity, it has NOTHING to connect it. Which means the director was just blowing smoke out his @$$ to connect it to something that it ITERALLY had nothing to do with in-universe. Easter eggs in a single scene do not a continuity make. If they wanted it to be in continuity, they should have WRITTEN it that way. They didn't.

I mean if the director say it's a sequel then it is...... I think the movie has several nods to the old movies. I am actually surprised this thread is still going curse op for making such a controversial thread

I do believe that this movie is at least a sequel in spirit. (I don't know what I mean by that) I think that an argument can be made for either or.

[pferreira]

Originally Posted by ABrown

Here's the thing, as far as I'm concerned, it's not up to the creators of the 2007 film to decide whether the movie is a continuation of the first three movies, any more than is it up to the creators of the first Nickelodeon cartoon to decide whether or not Krang (from the original TMNT cartoon) exists in their universe. If I go and make a film and claim that it's a sequel to the 2007 film, does that make it so? No. Only the creators of the original product can claim it to be a sequel of what they created.

Nickelodeon needs to hire TMNT continuity canon experts. I was about to say the but Okudas they're more into visual continuity rather than chronology.

Originally Posted by MsMarvelDuckie

And yet, for a movie "supposedly" in the same continuity, it has NOTHING to connect it. Which means the director was just blowing smoke out his @$$ to connect it to something that it ITERALLY had nothing to do with in-universe. Easter eggs in a single scene do not a continuity make. If they wanted it to be in continuity, they should have WRITTEN it that way. They didn't.

But couldn't you say the same thing about Superman Returns? That was both a loose sequel and reboot as well.

[MsMarvelDuckie]

Superman Returns at least acknowledged some of the material from the earlier films, though. This didn't. For that matter, we have the VERY glaring changes to April, and Karai not only appearing, but clearly already KNOWING the turtles (and vice versa)! Those are some pretty big continuity gaffes. So is Raph being Nightwatcher, or Mikey doing birthday parties. Imagine 1990 Splinter finding out he's been out literally exposing himself to humans in public, with just a giant fake head to hide the fact that he is exactly what he bills himself as himself as?! Splinter would have a heart attack. Or have him doing flips for the next TEN YEARS. Maybe both. I just don't see him EVER being ok with that. Too OOC. So is sending Leo to South America. 1990 Splinter would sooner chew off his own tail.

By the same token, why would April leave her cush reporting gig the be an antiquities dealer? She had neither the credentials nor the experience. Or even the interest, if one takes her background in the previous movies into account. The closest she came was in III, when she bought the scepter in a flea market- as a GIFT for Splinter. That's the extent of her forey into ancient artifacts, and that was accidental!

Claiming it is in continuity to the earlier movies literally makes ZERO sense, regardless what the director or whoever said. Personally, I think he was just trying to ride the coattails of their success by attaching his film to the original trilogy- which hardly validates his claim. If it were truly in the same continuity, we'd have seen more evidence than just a nostalgic easter egg scene at the end. But the plot itself didn't even manage to show that. It makes no sense at all.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by MsMarvelDuckie

Superman Returns at least acknowledged some of the material from the earlier films, though. This didn't.

It acknowledged the Shredder's death. What else did it need to acknowledge? Just throwing out references to "remember that time we time-traveled to Japan" just to prove it to people?

For that matter, we have the VERY glaring changes to April, and Karai not only appearing, but clearly already KNOWING the turtles (and vice versa)! Those are some pretty big continuity gaffes.

That's not what continuity gaffe means. And a lot could've happened in a year or two.

Things like...

So is Raph being Nightwatcher, or Mikey doing birthday parties.

By the same token, why would April leave her cush reporting gig the be an antiquities dealer? She had neither the credentials nor the experience.

What are you talking about? She would know plenty about antiques -- she literally grew up in an antique store... she told us so in the first movie. We saw it. The Turtles had a big fight in it.

[Redeemer]

Originally Posted by MsMarvelDuckie

Karai not only appearing, but clearly already KNOWING the turtles (and vice versa)! Those are some pretty big continuity gaffes. So is Raph being Nightwatcher, or Mikey doing birthday parties. Imagine 1990 Splinter finding out he's been out literally exposing himself to humans in public, with just a giant fake head to hide the fact that he is exactly what he bills himself as himself as?! Splinter would have a heart attack. Or have him doing flips for the next TEN YEARS. Maybe both. I just don't see him EVER being ok with that. Too OOC. So is sending Leo to South America. 1990 Splinter would sooner chew off his own tail.

By the same token, why would April leave her cush reporting gig the be an antiquities dealer? She had neither the credentials nor the experience.

First I don't think Karai or the turtles knew each other, bc Leo says "I think we are getting off on the wrong foot here" meaning/indicating this is there first meeting.
And then Leo shouts "The shredder is dead! who are you working for!" Indicating he is not aware Karia is the head of the foot at this point or her standing.

Second the turtles already got outed to the public in secret of the ooze. They got photographed and put on the front page of the paper. They didn't even try to hide themselves from the public by the end of the secret of the ooze, so I don't think its that big of a jump and it would explain why "Cowabunga Carl" is so popular.

Finally third April being an antique dealer is not that far of a stretch sense she grew up and ran an antique shop "2nd time around", so she does have some experience. Combine that with her background as a news reporter/ investigator and running an antiques shop I can see it.

These again are just my opinions, except for the first one I am pretty sure the turtles were not aware or familiar with Karia. Unless someone can correct?

I think we all just need to rewatch the movie

[MsMarvelDuckie]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

It acknowledged the Shredder's death. What else did it need to acknowledge? Just throwing out references to "remember that time we time-traveled to Japan" just to prove it to people?

That's not what continuity gaffe means. And a lot could've happened in a year or two.

Things like...

What are you talking about? She would know plenty about antiques -- she literally grew up in an antique store... she told us so in the first movie. We saw it. The Turtles had a big fight in it.

And yet, as others have pointed out, they HAVE killed (or at least supposedly killed) Shredderin just about every version. So that's not really a good metric to go by. All it means is they knew the Foot wasn't working for him anymore, so it had to be someone else. For that matter, as far as they knew, most of the Foot were in jail or had been disbanded.

Also, it's a far cry from growing up in or being the sometime owner/manager of an antique shop, to a dealer in major archeological artifacts. That requires an entirely different skillset and professional credentials, like being able to tell real artifacts from fakes, something she was never shown to have. She also barely ever even RAN the shop, with a blunt line to Donatello that she only kept it open because she missed her father, who "loved junk". So she clearly wasn't as much into the business as an antiquities dealer would have to be. (We're talking about finding ancient statues in far off jungles for rich collectors, something she had NO knowledge of in the trilogy films!) She was also still a reporter in the third movie, albeit on vacation, but more importantly, her shop was destroyed during the fight in the first! She no longer even had the antique shop to run!

Originally Posted by Redeemer

First I don't think Karai or the turtles knew each other, bc Leo says "I think we are getting off on the wrong foot here" meaning/indicating this is there first meeting.
And then Leo shouts "The shredder is dead! who are you working for!" Indicating he is not aware Karia is the head of the foot at this point or her standing.

Second the turtles already got outed to the public in secret of the ooze. They got photographed and put on the front page of the paper. They didn't even try to hide themselves from the public by the end of the secret of the ooze, so I don't think its that big of a jump and it would explain why "Cowabunga Carl" is so popular.

Finally third April being an antique dealer is not that far of a stretch sense she grew up and ran an antique shop "2nd time around", so she does have some experience. Combine that with her background as a news reporter/ investigator and running an antiques shop I can see it.

These again are just my opinions, except for the first one I am pretty sure the turtles were not aware or familiar with Karia. Unless someone can correct?

I think we all just need to rewatch the movie

Um, I might give you the wrong foot comment, though that seems more like a joke on Leo's part. Since Shredder was supposed to be dead (see above for why that means diddly), they knew the Foot were not working for him, but they DID realize she and the Foot were working for SOMEONE, and also didn't seem surprised to see HER there, as though they at least knew OF her. And she most certainly knew them. In contrast, in the trilogy, Shredder not only had no female lieutenants, but not even any ranking female Foot ninjas, just a few teenage girls in the warehouse. In fact, I'll go one better- that first encounter was during a battle between the Foot and the blue ape monster, and the turtles seemed less shocked by the monster than that the Foot were actually still around! Which leads to an interesting question- why were they not totally freaked out to see a giant monster? (Notice they didn't freak out until its attention was on them.)

I'll pose a theory here, which is that this film is closer to the 2003 series continuity, given that there were also mouser parts and other items from that series (or Mirage) in the trophy room. Both Mirage and 2003 had them in space, time-travel, and dealing with monsters and supernatural beings on a fairly regular basis, so their reaction seems much more in line with that. The most the 90's films had were the time scepter and Tokka and Rahzar. Even the Utroms seem unlikely there, considering that the TCRI became TGRI in them. (That would imply that the cosmic/alien aspect/element of the company is missing.) Shredder is still dead here, so it's feasible that was his helmet from that world, or one very like it. Same with the scepter, which is also whole, unlike at the end of TMNT III, where it was melted. My bet is that scepter was from an incident involving Renet.....

As for Mikey, that dance club scene was pretty much made clear that the people all thought it was some kind of show or publicity stunt. Even the stage manager thought someone had hired them to show up. And Splinter made his feelings that they should have "practiced harder" quite plain, bad joke notwithstanding. Cowabunga Carl was pretty much the opposite of what he wanted of them, even AFTER they got exposed! (And the third movie opens with them having been kept underground for an extended period, probably to avoid any further incidents. Raph even comments that "nobody even knows we're alive down here!" And is obviously bored and frustrated from long confinement after having more freedom in the second movie. Splinter had apparently "grounded" them. Nothing about any of that fits with Leo going to South America (why there, of all places?) or Raph becoming a vigilante like Casey, or Mikey risking full exposure by posing as a birthday party performer. Donnie I might give a pass, since his job could hide behind a computer screne and a phone line. But it just doesn't make sense for Splinter to let them risk getting discovered. (AGAIN!)

[ABrown]

Originally Posted by Redeemer

So if J.J. Abrams says that Last Jedi is not a sequel to The force awakens then that means it not a sequel?????

I just don't agree. If the director says that this movie was a sequel to the original live action trilogy then I think it is. Unless Laird were to say other wise, bc (I think he had a hand to some degree in both films.)

You're right, what I wrote was incorrect, and as such I've made an edit to that post. What I should've said is that only the original creator can make anything that is "canon", not "in-continuity". And yes, that being the case, I don't consider any of the new Star Wars movies to be canon.

[pferreira]

Originally Posted by ABrown

And yes, that being the case, I don't consider any of the new Star Wars movies to be canon.

If this site allowed thumbs up I would for this comment.