Do you think the 1990 film will ever be equalled (or surprassed) in the future?

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by sgtfbomb

It started out with good intentions of telling a Bruce Wayne-oriented story.

The movie originally opened up with a gothic scene where Two-Face has escaped Arkham, leaving a dead guard dangling by rope and the words "The Bat Must Die" written in blood. Then it cut to the scene where Bruce Wayne meets Edward Nigma and leaves seeing the bat signal (notice that you hear sirens). In the theatrical cut, the signal was just a hoax from Dr. Chase to lure in Batman for her weird fetish with him. As originally filmed and intended, the signal was for the bank robbery scene which was moved to the front of the film.

The scene with Dr. Chase originally took place after the circus scene, and her lines were over-dubbed.

Also, watching the film, one must wonder why Batman allows the Riddler and Two Face to go on a crazy crime spree. Well, originally we were to find out that Nigma had hacked the tracking device on the Batmobile, sending him to the wrong locations. A scene shows up in the deleted scenes, where with no explanation, he enters a heists only to find a bunch of beauticians. It's horrible, mostly because of one of the comments -- "A little off the top Batman?" -- and their laughter. However, a good editor would cut around that, and end the scene with the confusion but no dialogue.

During one of the heists, The Riddler facetiously asks Two Face to teach him how to punch a guy. The Riddler punches and his hand hurts. The scene ends there in the film, for a laugh. But, as filmed, it continued and Nigma either beats the guy to death or near-death.

Throughout the film, there are scenes of Bruce at his parent's funeral. They only serve a small part in the theatrical cut, but were originally the heart and soul of the film. Bruce was to feel responsible for his parent's murder because he wanted to see a movie.

Later, in the theatrical cut, Two Face shoots Bruce. The bullet grazes the side of his head and he lands unconscious. Moments pass and he wakes up. Alfred says something like "the boy is missing, Chase has been kidnapped, and the bat cave has been destroyed." You can somewhat notice a look of confusion on Bruce's face before the film cuts ahead. Well, he had temporarily lost his memory. So Alfred takes him to the Bat Cave and shows him a dark path, which leads him to hole he fell through as a child. There he finds his father's red diary, where his father mentions that he too had wanted to go to the movies or something like that. Bruce, gaining parts of his memory back, realizes it wasn't his fault.

He sees a bat coming his way. Suddenly, a human-sized bat appears before him. They both spread their arms out as the shot pans around them. Not only does his full memory come back -- which, yes, is a bit of tiny sidetrack -- but his entire identity crisis (that he has all throughout the theatrical cut -- "Should I be Batman? Should I not be Batman?) is resolved. He is Batman forever. Hence the title....

The movie would then continue as it was, with Bruce and Alfred solving the riddles and the final climactic fight.

There were a few other trims, like Riddler being even more creepy around Dr. Chase when he has her hostage, the building of the island, and an alternate final shot where we see Batman and Robin on top of a gargoyle looking down on the city, just like Batman '89's ending.

WB came close to doing a director's cut for the 2005 special edition DVD, but ultimately decided not to do it and released *some* of the footage, lacking some of the context. Of course, some of my other issues with the film would still exist, like the score and the circus like red and green lights that light up Gotham City.

I've seen a fan-edited cut that appeared to have done all of that and restored the missing footage.

Still ghastly.

[pferreira]

Originally Posted by THGhost

Those shows are more than successful enough for people who grew up with the 80s cartoon to have heard of them though.

Not the mainstream audience though, not Joe Public who doesn't follow every successive iteration.

Originally Posted by sgtfbomb

It might have been better than Batman Returns had the original intentions survived the final cut, but they cut out of most of the psychological story, including an awesome symbolic sequence involving a large bat, and then re-arranged the scenes to bring the action to the start. Not that the action scenes were any good. They were like 90s versions of Adam West's fight scenes. They nerfed the bad guys a little, including a moment where the Riddler actually seems like a dangerous threat. It was an extension of the "I wanna learn how to hit a guy" scene, where he gets out of control. What is used of the scene is played for laughs. And, of course, they even gave the film a painfully annoying, painfully repetitive score, which amplified the camp factor even higher to "I just wanna puke" levels. (Sorry, that is the best way I could describe that score )

For me Batman Forever while not as good as the 1989 movie struck a good balance between being gothic and being fun. I enjoyed the fight scenes, I enjoyed the characters. Jim Carrey's Riddler and Chris O'Donnell's Robin are particularly great while I felt Tommy Lee Jones Two Face feels very one note. Yeah it's a bit cheesy at times but it feels like it had more going for it than Batman Returns which revelled in it's own grotesqueness and black comedy. I like the Christopher Nolan movies more than Batman Returns.

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

Forever is only nominally less abortive than B&R. Then and now.

Batman and Robin was a more excessive version of Batman Forever's style. BF I could have put up with for further sequels.

Originally Posted by Tetsu Deinonychus

And, I'm kind of intrigued by the Batman film Schumacher wanted to make before WB gave the series the axe, "Batman Triumphant". It was supposed to be his "apology" film for Batman and Robin.

Batman Triumphant would have been amazing and part of me still wishes they'd do that film. The Joel Schumacher era would be looked upon more fondly had this film been produced.

[THGhost]

Originally Posted by pferreira

Not the mainstream audience though, not Joe Public who doesn't follow every successive iteration.

Isn't this basically what I was saying anyway? The average person only knows the 80s cartoon, maybe the PD films? Glad we agree though.

I too enjoy Batman Forever for what it is.

[sgtfbomb]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

I've seen a fan-edited cut that appeared to have done all of that and restored the missing footage.

Still ghastly.

The problem with Batman Forever is that not all of the deleted scenes have been released. A lot of the things I mentioned are MIA, like Bruce's amnesia, the Riddler violently beating a guy up, etc. The DVD and Blu Ray just include a select few scenes that are out of context and often missing either the set up or the payoff.

But...

Fan edits aren't very good, usually. Because they aren't legit edits, they don't have the actual masters to work around. Plus, the missing footage isn't properly cleaned up and you still hear the awkward on-set sounds and there is no ADR to work with.

Plus, if they want to work in Elfman's score, not only would it stand out because they would have taken tracks from the two existing scores, which aren't personalized to the scenes of Batman Forever, but because they would have to work with a RIP of a DVD or Blu Ray where the existing score is very prominent.

[pferreira]

Originally Posted by THGhost

I too enjoy Batman Forever for what it is.

And I wouldn't have that any other way.

[UsagiYoJimBelushi]

Probably not for multiple reasons. There's no arguing the movie was excellent but also its placement in the early years of the TMNT and what it inevitably allowed the turtles to become are what make the movie the best. Anyone that then looks into the story of how the movie struggled to be made and how it came together will only be more charmed by the film. Best can be a very relative and debatable term but i will say this. The first turtles movie is without doubt the most important film of the TMNT franchise

[pferreira]

Originally Posted by UsagiYoJimBelushi

The first turtles movie is without doubt the most important film of the TMNT franchise

Whether we like it or not the first PD movie did great business at the Box Office as well.

[ToTheNines]

And they lost their ass on the sequel.

[pferreira]

Originally Posted by ToTheNines

And they lost their ass on the sequel.

It's a case of people seeing the movie and all goodwill being lost for the sequel. The same thing happened with Amazing Spider-Man although unlike Ninja Turtles the second Spider-Man movie was worse.

[LeotheLateBloomer]

Originally Posted by pferreira

It's a case of people seeing the movie and all goodwill being lost for the sequel. The same thing happened with Amazing Spider-Man although unlike Ninja Turtles the second Spider-Man movie was worse.

Debatable. Familiar elements don't automatically make a film better if the story is worse.

[Shellington]

No.

There are some special films that no reboot can really surpass, because part of their charm and appeal is in them being the first of their kind. Superman 1978, Batman 1989, X-Men 2000, Spider-Man 2002, and TMNT 90.

And this film tells a good story:
- it draws its main story from the Eastman-Laird comics, but pays homage to the 87 cartoon too and keeps a great blend between fun and serious
- it skips over the sci-fi origin with a simple "it happened, accept it" in comparison to rcent times trying to make a detailed origin for the mutation (eg Project Renaissance) but gives a brief but emotionally touching backstory on the tragic history of Splinter, Yoshi and Saki
- it uses the theme of family by showing the Turtles fight and care for each other, and how April and Casey join this family, and highlights how alone (and selfish) the Shredder is despite his power and fearsome nature

[Punker]

I think that it will be tough to make anything that surpasses the original movie until the movie industry gets out of their CGI obsession phase. I probably sound like a cranky old person, but the insane amounts of CGI is what ruins this new movie series for me.

I think that the Turtles look so much better in costumes rather than giant computer animated monsters. I also think that the fight scenes look much more realistic in the original movies. I would much rather see real martial artists fighting each other instead of these crazy CGI filled battles where I can't even tell what's happening half of the time.

If they ever wanted to make something that's close to surpassing the original movie, they would also have to go back to better story and character development. One of my biggest complaints when I saw the 2014 movie was that it felt like they sacrificed the nice character moments for extra long CGI battles. Think about some of the scenes from the original movie:

• The moment with Splinter and Raphael, after Raph comes back from his encounter with Casey Jones.

• Raph and Leo's argument, followed up by their touching moment after Raph wakes back up.

• Just about every scene at the farmhouse.

• The Turtles having the vision of Splinter over the fire while meditating.

Those are just some of the great character moments that are totally missing from the new movies. The story in general just feels more personal too: Oroku Saki killed Splinter's master 15 years ago, Oroku Saki has built the Foot Clan into a powerful empire as the Shredder, the Turtles are finally a threat to his empire, the Foot capture Splinter and burn down April's apartment, the Turtles regroup after finding themselves at the farmhouse, and it all leads to an epic showdown on the rooftop where Splinter finally gets his revenge on Oroku Saki. It's certainly much better than just the generic story about evil guys who want to take over the city by spreading poisonous gas.

Part of it is perspective too though...for me, the original movie will never be surpassed, but part of the reason is because it's the film that I grew up on. I loved it as a kid, I still love it today, and it will always hold a special place in my heart. Kids who are growing up today might say the same thing about the 2014 movie in years to come, as weird as that sounds.

[sgtfbomb]

It's not what you use to bring the Turtles to life. It's how you give them humanity.

[Original TMNT Cartoon Fan]

I guess it was also popular because fans didn't require so much, just simple stories. The bad guys kidnap one of the good guys' family members or friends, and the good guys must come to the rescue.

[billbot85]

To me, the 1990 film could never be equalled or surpassed, especially since the film was perfect for its time. I feel the film really represented the late 80's/early 90's and the height of the original Turtle Mania.

As mentioned here before, it was the first of its kind, which I think makes it that more iconic.

[Original TMNT Cartoon Fan]

Originally Posted by Punker

The story in general just feels more personal too:

I guess it depends on if it's character-based or plot-based storylines.

[neatoman]

I don't know if I posted in this thread before, but I'd say the answer is a maybe? While the first movie is arguably the best movie, it's worth noting that it's veeeeeeeeery flawed and TMNT 2007 is the only other one that doesn't feel like straight up trash. 2 out 6 are watchable, and I can't even those are actually good under any reasonable standard. The two of them basically win by default because they treat the material with some semblance of respect, even if it didn't turn out that great.

All you really need to surpass the original and 2007 is to have a stronger script, a somewhat better director and a slightly higher budget.

[Original TMNT Cartoon Fan]

Originally Posted by neatoman

I don't know if I posted in this thread before but, I'd say the answer is a maybe? While the first movie is arguably the best movie, it's worth noting that it's veeeeeeeeery flawed and TMNT 2007 is the only other one that doesn't feel like straight up trash. 2 out 6 are watchable, and I can't even those are actually good under any reasonable standard. The two of them basically win by default because they treat the material with some semblance of respect, even if it didn't turn out that great.

All you really need to surpass the original and 2007 is to have a stronger script, a somewhat better director and a slightly higher budget.

And, to surpass the "Secret of the Ooze", Utroms!

[1/2Shell]

The only way I could see a good sequel to the 1990 film would be to shoot a new Turtles movie the same way the 1990 film was shot. On film, using the same suits / special effects and with a similar quality of cast.

It would have to be an independent / fan-made production.

I think a claymation turtles movie would be really interesting too. That's a technique that isn't used nearly enough nowadays...

[neatoman]

Originally Posted by Original TMNT Cartoon Fan

And, to surpass the "Secret of the Ooze", Utroms!

... I guess? If you mean that Utroms would have made that particular movie better, I guess that line about Donatello doubting the ooze's origin might have some payoff? The way it's presented in the movie it just seems like he's unhappy about the obvious.

If you mean just a movie detailing their origin, sure. What explaination did the other movies give us? Freak accidental waste product and a scam to get stupid rich off a poison? Utroms are the key to a bigger world, they don't feel like a cheap answer.