What if the first film was made like oots?

[FredWolfLeonardo]

Imagine you're in 2014, and the first PD tmnt film is being released. It has the characters and plot of oots, but with changes such as:

1. Showing the turtles, splinters and shredders origin story with no Eric Sacks
2. No Vernon and Karai as these contribute nothing to the 2nd film.
3. The style and character designs of oots

How do you think this film would've done in comparison to the actual 2014 film, both in the box office and among fans/critics. How would it have affected the future of tmnt?

[Autbot_Benz]

it would still be **** seriously the PD films are done lets just move on

[snake]

It would've made the same at the box office as the first movie and got a sequel that would underpreform. The general audience doesn't give two sh*ts about what characters will appear or what influences the incarnation has.

TMNT is a name brand that generates interest on NAME ONLY. If the product is good, the interest stays. If it's sub-par (PDTMNT), the interest dies out.

[neatoman]

If the first one was more like the second? It would still suck, just even harder. Look, can we just accept that neither one of these movies worked out and just hope Paramount learns from their mistakes?

[TigerClaw]

Originally Posted by FredWolfLeonardo

Imagine you're in 2014, and the first PD tmnt film is being released. It has the characters and plot of oots, but with changes such as:

1. Showing the turtles, splinters and shredders origin story with no Eric Sacks
2. No Vernon and Karai as these contribute nothing to the 2nd film.
3. The style and character designs of oots

How do you think this film would've done in comparison to the actual 2014 film, both in the box office and among fans/critics. How would it have affected the future of tmnt?

The 1st film should've been Out Of The Shadows, The 1st movie had the opportunity to show Bebop, Rocksteady and Krang first, but they didn't, Even though the supposed script that was leaked did had Bebop, Rocksteady and Krang involved.

[IndigoErth]

If it would still spend time on origin stories, then it might inherently have to be a different film.

I think in terms of the effort they improved on the writing, characterizations, and interactions of the Turtles themselves, had 2016 been the first then what would have come after it, had there likewise still been a push for improvement, might have been better enough to put it in position for a third. Maybe. Essentially starting midway up rather than starting at rock bottom.

Trying to be looney toons/OT aside, the Turtles were otherwise so much better in this one, makes me sad that everything else around them had to screw it over for them.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by FredWolfLeonardo

Imagine you're in 2014, and the first PD tmnt film is being released. It has the characters and plot of oots, but with changes such as:

1. Showing the turtles, splinters and shredders origin story with no Eric Sacks
2. No Vernon and Karai as these contribute nothing to the 2nd film.
3. The style and character designs of oots

How do you think this film would've done in comparison to the actual 2014 film, both in the box office and among fans/critics. How would it have affected the future of tmnt?

It would resemble this, somewhat:







Only with even worse costuming than that.

[snake]

POO IN LOO

I love that video.

[FredWolfLeonardo]

Originally Posted by TigerClaw

The 1st film should've been Out Of The Shadows, The 1st movie had the opportunity to show Bebop, Rocksteady and Krang first, but they didn't, Even though the supposed script that was leaked did had Bebop, Rocksteady and Krang involved.

I would've preferred a film with the general plot of 2014 but in the style of oots.

For e.g. Shredder and Krang are the main villains, but Shredder has the same role as Eric Sacks in the actual first film, while Krang is like Shredder from it, the big bad who operates from behind the shadows while Shredder does the fighting and misleads the turtles into thinking he's the main threat.

Heck, I wouldn't have minded the guy who played Eric Sacks to do the Shredder himself. A Japanese Shredder wouldn't have been necessary, due to the lack of Hamato Yoshi, and would've given us a different take which would add to the different stories of the tmnt multiverse.

The backstory of Splinter, the Turtles and April would stay the same, except with Shredder and Eric Sacks being merged into one character who is subservient to Krang, who wishes to unleash the mutagen on the city in order to terraform it into a Dimension-X type landscape.

Character designs would be like Oots, and the turtles would have a bigger role like the second film. However, the story and the tone would be more like the 1st film.

Casey Jones would not be needed as Vernon was already there as a male sidekick to April, and I liked Will Arnett far more than Stephen Amell.

Karai would've also been unnecessary without a Japanese Shredder, so she could be replaced by Bebop/Rocksteady as Shredder's henchmen. It would've been pretty cool to see the turtles fight Bebop and Rocksteady in the subway and snow chase scenes instead of Karai.

Baxter Stockman would not be needed in this film either and he could be saved for the sequel where he is mainly tasked with rescuing Shredder.

So the major characters would've been:

1. Leonardo
2. Donatello
3. Michelangelo
4. Raphael
5. Splinter
6. April
7. Shredder
8. Krang
9. Bebop
10. Rocksteady
11. Vernon
12. April's Father

[LeotheLateBloomer]

It's really hard to say.

The thing is, I just don't see how you can do an OT styled movie using these turtles. You're trying to make your movie based on the most light-hearted iteration of them using possibly the most intimidating and repulsive looking ones. And if the tone, style, and everything else was the same, it'd still be compared to Bay's other films, most notably Transformers.

I say it's best not to dwell on it. What's done is done.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by LeotheLateBloomer

It's really hard to say.

The thing is, I just don't see how you can do an OT styled movie using these turtles. You're trying to make your movie based on the most light-hearted iteration of them using possibly the most intimidating and repulsive looking ones. And if the tone, style, and everything else was the same, it'd still be compared to Bay's other films, most notably Transformers.

I say it's best not to dwell on it. What's done is done.

There was only ever one solution to this:



Or this...

[Walkabout]

Maybe they should have had the Turtles look like The Turtles, same goes for Splinter.

I can't look at those Shrek/Hulk abominations.

[sgtfbomb]

A movie's success has little to do with the quality of the film and more to do with the quality of the advertising and it's release schedule. Unless we're talking about staying power, but that is a different story, and most movies aren't so lucky. So, typically, it is about that opening weekend (with international dollars as a bonus).

Most of the time, the advertising, accurate or not, is not meant to sell THE movie to an audience but A movie to an audience, not necessarily the movie that is being advertised. Though, I felt the advertising was pretty much accurate here. (Sometimes, they'll sell a film as being more a thriller even though it is a drama, for example). So, in this case, they hit the mark.

But the real test is the schedule and who the audience really is. The first film was successful, but it was released in August, which at least in the US, is a safer month and less hectic. In May, June, and July, almost every weekend has a new, major, giant tentpole release, sometimes two to three on any given week. Whereas in August, when the first Bay Turtles film was released, there is usually on a couple of ,amor tentpole releases and a few modest ones, but less competition.

It's quite possible, maybe even very likely, that had the first Bay Turtles film been released in the dead middle of summer, it wouldn't have been nearly as financially successful as it was.

Another factor is seating. In the past couple years, more and more theaters have been adopting recliner seating for every one of their auditoriums, as sort of a way to lure in audiences. Some even have 21 & up auditoriums with awesome gourmet meals, like steaks. I have 6 theaters in a 20 minute radius, 4 of them have these recliner seats and they are amazing. They also accommodate less viewers and benefit the theater and the audiences more than the studio. They appear to hold as much as 1/4 to 1/3 of theaters with traditional seating. So, a sell out at those 4 theaters isn't nearly as impressive as a sellout in the two theaters, with hold way more viewers.

I think these are big factors as to why OotS didn't do as well. I feel like quality has less to do with it. It seems like Transformers films, despite being for the most part awful, still continue to do well. The last film just didn't trend as well as a lot of the current franchises. No one was really like "OMG, look at the new Turtles trailer!" the way they were for new Star Wars and Marvel films. (Remember, we're not talking about the fanbase, but the general audience). Even despite a negative reaction, Batman V. Superman had a lot of attention. And then there was the OotS trailer, so tiny and small, trying to say "Hey, I'm here too!"

[TigerClaw]

Originally Posted by sgtfbomb

A movie's success has little to do with the quality of the film and more to do with the quality of the advertising and it's release schedule. Unless we're talking about staying power, but that is a different story, and most movies aren't so lucky. So, typically, it is about that opening weekend (with international dollars as a bonus).

Most of the time, the advertising, accurate or not, is not meant to sell THE movie to an audience but A movie to an audience, not necessarily the movie that is being advertised. Though, I felt the advertising was pretty much accurate here. (Sometimes, they'll sell a film as being more a thriller even though it is a drama, for example). So, in this case, they hit the mark.

But the real test is the schedule and who the audience really is. The first film was successful, but it was released in August, which at least in the US, is a safer month and less hectic. In May, June, and July, almost every weekend has a new, major, giant tentpole release, sometimes two to three on any given week. Whereas in August, when the first Bay Turtles film was released, there is usually on a couple of ,amor tentpole releases and a few modest ones, but less competition.

It's quite possible, maybe even very likely, that had the first Bay Turtles film been released in the dead middle of summer, it wouldn't have been nearly as financially successful as it was.

Another factor is seating. In the past couple years, more and more theaters have been adopting recliner seating for every one of their auditoriums, as sort of a way to lure in audiences. Some even have 21 & up auditoriums with awesome gourmet meals, like steaks. I have 6 theaters in a 20 minute radius, 4 of them have these recliner seats and they are amazing. They also accommodate less viewers and benefit the theater and the audiences more than the studio. They appear to hold as much as 1/4 to 1/3 of theaters with traditional seating. So, a sell out at those 4 theaters isn't nearly as impressive as a sellout in the two theaters, with hold way more viewers.

I think these are big factors as to why OotS didn't do as well. I feel like quality has less to do with it. It seems like Transformers films, despite being for the most part awful, still continue to do well. The last film just didn't trend as well as a lot of the current franchises. No one was really like "OMG, look at the new Turtles trailer!" the way they were for new Star Wars and Marvel films. (Remember, we're not talking about the fanbase, but the general audience). Even despite a negative reaction, Batman V. Superman had a lot of attention. And then there was the OotS trailer, so tiny and small, trying to say "Hey, I'm here too!"

Do you think the movie would've done better if they released during the fall season?

[sgtfbomb]

Originally Posted by TigerClaw

Do you think the movie would've done better if they released during the fall season?

No, not fall. Because things start to ramp up again. But maybe August. Then again, maybe not.

[IndigoErth]

Dead of winter maybe when the holidays are over and there is little else to do?

Or maybe preferably just look at scheduled release dates and pick what looked like the least competitive time to safely make itself a better option in comparison.

[FredWolfLeonardo]

I think Oots should've been released in August like its predecessor as opposed to June, maybe that would've made it more successful.

[Autbot_Benz]

nothing would have made OOTS successful people hated the Hack job that was the first one and knew ahead of time not to waste money on the sequel. You could cram every fan favorite in oots and it would still suck because Platnium Dunes are a shoddy production company and don't understand the Turtles.


I mean lets turn Casey from a bad ass street Vigilante into Whiny Cop Pussy Amell

[Shellington]

Cleaner designs for the Turtles would have helped out.

But beyond that, I can't see anything else that could have helped the first film.

[sgtfbomb]

Originally Posted by IndigoErth

Dead of winter maybe when the holidays are over and there is little else to do?

Or maybe preferably just look at scheduled release dates and pick what looked like the least competitive time to safely make itself a better option in comparison.

January. It was a month that used to be only duds. Now there is typically one major film out, the rest being duds and more serious films that do modest business like The Founder (which I can't wait to see, especially since it got pushed from August to compete in the Oscars).

If they were to make a more definitive Turtles film. Summer. With the competition, they will have to advertise the crap out of it.