The 2007 movie is a mess, a good one.

[d_osborn]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

But I can't fathom that was the deciding factor in why "Let's have the Turtles strike their opponents with their weapons and hurt them" wasn't a thing. That was only ever a "ehh... we better tread lightly around these angry parent groups and such, and SURGE has that toy stuff and all" thing, and nothing else.

I'm sure MPAA would have loved Shredder's head being cut off by Leo. You can't just willy nilly do what you want in a film when there are investors and contractual ratings obligations. Not to mention, Henson was apprehensive about taking on the project, so I'm sure there was consideration by Barron there.

[AquaParade]

Originally Posted by d_osborn

I'm sure MPAA would have loved Shredder's head being cut off by Leo. You can't just willy nilly do what you want in a film when there are investors and contractual ratings obligations. Not to mention, Henson was apprehensive about taking on the project, so I'm sure there was consideration by Barron there.

Not to speak for Andrew, but I don't think that is what is in question here. He knows there are restrictions, he just isn't happy with the end product.

Originally Posted by sgtfbomb

I didn't say "it would make the film darker." You seemed to have ignored the part where I said, "But these were more likely cut for pacing reasons, not violence. "

Yeah, to be fair, that sort of came out of nowhere, Andrew.

[d_osborn]

Originally Posted by AquaParade

...he just isn't happy with the end product.

Really? He hasn't whined enough about to make that apparent.

We're discussing the reasoning and decisions behind the lack of brutal, violent fight scenes in an early-90s family film. They're absolutely what's in question.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by d_osborn

I'm sure MPAA would have loved Shredder's head being cut off by Leo. You can't just willy nilly do what you want in a film when there are investors and contractual ratings obligations. Not to mention, Henson was apprehensive about taking on the project, so I'm sure there was consideration by Barron there.

20 years, and me saying "I sure wish the Turtles can strike the bad guys with their weapons in a movie" still seems to = "OMG, you madman... Turtles can't be R rated, you idiot!!"

Moronic. They can easily use them and it fall under PG-13. They've been intentionally tying both arms behind their back since 1990. Nobody is asking for a bloodbath. It's IN the title, for f***'s sake.

[d_osborn]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

20 years, and me saying "I sure wish the Turtles can strike the bad guys with their weapons in a movie" still seems to = "OMG, you madman... Turtles can't be R rated, you idiot!!"

Moronic. They can easily use them and it fall under PG-13. They've been intentionally tying both arms behind their back since 1990.

I don't disagree, but I understand the reasoning behind the decisions. Yelling at a brick wall for 20 years is your fault.

[pferreira]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

Am I being a curmudgeon for wanting that last 35%, in spite of the pretty OK 65%? Maybe. Over the years I just take annoyance with folks treating TMNT 1990 like it's synonymous with "Mirage: The Movie."

To be fair there have been worse comic book adaptations in film. I do get your frustration though, you want something completely exact and faithful.

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

And then they STILL kowtowed to it, with the aftermath. That's why there was no weapons usage at all in TMNT II, just a nunchuk sausage.

That was parental groups getting angry about TMNT. A shame Mike doesn't even use his weapons in the sequel.

Originally Posted by Leo656

That whole movie's pretty much a flaming wreck, but it comes with the "bonus" of the most boring and hack-ish "fight" scenes between all-powerful demigods that anyone's ever put to film. And they didn't have the "excuse" of being buried in foam rubber, either. They could've done just about anything they wanted, and that pansy-ass slap fight is the best they came up with.

Wow, I thought Superman II had an awesome fight. I mean could have done without Richard Lester's added on humour but the fights itself looked amazing. Sure as hell more exciting and interesting than Man of Steel.

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

They can easily use them and it fall under PG-13. They've been intentionally tying both arms behind their back since 1990. Nobody is asking for a bloodbath. It's IN the title, for f***'s sake.

I suppose they could have the TMNT stab people but not show blood.

Originally Posted by d_osborn

It was ripped straight from the pages of the Mirage comics. Barron used the issues as storyboards in early development.

You're right, I do remember Barron mentioning specific shots being translated from the comics.

[Leo656]

Originally Posted by pferreira

Wow, I thought Superman II had an awesome fight. I mean could have done without Richard Lester's added on humour but the fights itself looked amazing. Sure as hell more exciting and interesting than Man of Steel.

That's a terrible opinion but that's fine, it's yours, you can keep it.

Two guys who could individually punch out the sun if they wanted to should cause a little more of a ruckus when they clash than casually whipping manhole covers at each other or indulging in product placement for giggles' sake. If you're not gonna knock over a city, then don't even book that fight. MoS had entirely the right idea while Superman II wasted everyone's time on sight gags and nonsense. I can't even sit through that one anymore, it's terrible. Donner Cut is a moderate improvement but still incredibly flawed. But either cut of Superman II would need a rocket up its ass to match MoS.