Should the Franchise Be Going In the Opposite Direction?

[Dejablue]

Not everything in tmnt is meant for children but I think you can get away with a lot of stuff in children's media if you know how to be sneaky about it.

[Leo656]

Originally Posted by ZariusTwo

A lot of the time I feel modern adults are, in terms of mental maturity, no different than moody twelve-year olds. Kids are always thinking dark things even when they're watching cutesy stuff, and write just as much mindless edgy content as Didio-era DC.

In the very first fanfic I ever wrote, I killed off at least three people. I was eight and in Primary School, hooked on shows like The Shoe People and The Family Ness. I got a gold star for it.

Maybe it's just me but I think it's possible to tell when there's a "sincerity" to the material.

I mean, you've read some'a my stuff. It's definitely "dark" in places but I think it's on the whole pretty balanced. I just try to write from a place of sincerity.

I am no David Lynch, but I cite Lynch because his stuff can range from the absolute darkest depths of depravity to the fluffiest of cornball goofiness, as anyone who's seen the entirety of "Twin Peaks" can attest. But neither feels phony or forced, it simply feels... authentic to the situations, I guess? That's what I try and aim for. You'd probably have to tell me if I'm getting it right or not, in your opinion, but that's what I try to do.

But so yeah, whether a piece of work is inherently Light and Fluffy or Dark N Gritty, I don't think either one is as important as "Is the work coming from a place of honesty and sincerity? Or is it all just contrived nonsense?"

But that's my take. I think it's possible to tell the difference between someone being sincere and someone who's just making up words if you really look at things, but perhaps it's just me.

[ZariusTwo]

Originally Posted by Leo656

Maybe it's just me but I think it's possible to tell when there's a "sincerity" to the material.

I mean, you've read some'a my stuff. It's definitely "dark" in places but I think it's on the whole pretty balanced. I just try to write from a place of sincerity.

You write from what reality conjures up for you, which I appreciate. What's better is the world you inhabit to front your bills is complete Tex Avery to begin with, so the wackiness blends perfectly with the grounded stuff and doesn't feel unnatural or forced to meet the expectations of a franchise fanbase.

[PizzaPower1985]

Is it possible that in modern times (say the last 25 years or so) human beings have used edginess, gritty, darker tropes and more adult themed storytelling as a crutch to mask less thoughtful, perhaps less deep or introspective writing? I'm talking about fiction in all its forms: TV, long form prose, comics, film etc. Some of it has certainly been great (Breaking Bad, Dexter, Tarantino movies, American Horror Story) and some of it has ranged from good to terrible (Mad Men tv series, Ed Brubaker's crime comics, the Supernatural TV series, Game of Thrones novels and TV, the 50 Shades of Grey novels, modern Marvel and DC Comics).

Has humankind always used shallow edginess as a crutch to illicit an emotional response when more profound ideas are absent or am I just talking out of my butt?

I ask because I think IF we got the TMNT that I truly wanted some might see it as edgy for the sake of "kewl" or shallow or forced or over the top. I know it's not possible to please everybody BUT I think TMNT has for so long been TRAPPED by the perception of being for little ones that if we suddenly went into reverse and offered a decade of projects for 25 to 50 year olds we might wreck the damn car.

[Galactus]

I'd argue there was a mini TMNT creative renaissance as the Turtlemania was starting to wane. Eastman & Laird returned to the Mirage book after a period of absence to do Shades of Grey and City At War, the Red Sky seasons of the animated series, the video games experimented with things beyond side scrolling button mashers with Radical Rescue and the various Tournament Fighters, even the action figures were trying new things beyond dressing up the turtles in silly costumes.

As for if TMNT was ever bought by WB or Disney and folded into the DC and Marvel publishing I think neither company could resist having the same universe as their mainline characters. True DC keeps Masters of the Universe separate save for a few crossovers and Marvel does own Star Wars and keep that completely separate from their mainline comics but I think TMNT would be folded in fully to their prime universes.

I definitely think Marvel would be more enthusiastic about their new acquisition. I could see Leonardo eventually joining the Avengers or Don temporarily replacing a member of the Fantastic Four whereas DC I feel would keep their status as outsiders more.

Both companies can do dark but I doubt either one could resist Fred Wolfisms. Batman/TMNT treated the material with a greater degree of seriousness than anyone expected but it still had it's fair share of pizza, skate boarding and cowabunga and the sequels where riddled with it.

I expect various creative teams would veer more one way than the other but as long as they struck a 'balance' I wouldn't mind TMNT being handled either of the big two. In fact I think either company would have the clout to put some genuinely edgier stuff out there in a way that Tom Waltz and IDW can't with Nickelodeon owning them.

[Leo656]

I mean at this point I forever expect SOME stuff from the original cartoon to creep into any new version of TMNT, and I genuinely don't have a problem with some callbacks. But I don't think any new version should be defined by, compared to, or beholden to that version by default. I think it should strive to not be "TMNT Jambalaya" as Andrew would say, but to in some way find a respectful balance between most/all of the most prominent versions of TMNT in spirit if not overtly. Most of them have something worth hanging onto, but not in equal measure and/or taking priority all at once. Like when Byrne was writing Superman, it had little bits and pieces of Every Single Thing that had come before it, but it was entirely its own new thing that merely took the best parts of everything before and presented it in a new and/or improved way. You CAN take a thread here or a patch there from all these different disparate versions of something and end up with NOT a toxic, sludgy soup, but a tapestry. The wisdom lies in knowing what to keep, what to leave, what to feature prominently and what to let rest in the background.

Like, obviously when they revamped Superman (and by extension, Lex Luthor) in 1986, they were gonna have Lex back in the old Super-Friends armor eventually because it was iconic. And they'd drop references to it here and there. But he didn't actually become "Battle Armor Lex, Mad Scientist Super-Villain" again in canon for just under 20 years, until a story finally came along that allowed them to revive it in a way that felt organic and not like a cheesy, forced throwback to a cartoon show. That's the kinda thing I mean when I talk about creatives "showing a little restraint".

I do think that someone writing/publishing a TMNT comic CAN show similar restraint while still trickling in familiar bits from the most prominent canon(s), but so far most of the attempts have been rather heavy-handed in doing so. Too much of the Fred Wolf throwbacks feel too forced and on-the-nose, to me. But I'm not against borrowing from it. Too much, though, is no good.

...See, I too can see Marvel sticking Leo or someone on the Avengers and that's kinda not what I wanna see, as interesting as it might be from a fan-wanky kinda point of view. Too fan-ficcy, and I say that as someone whose own scribblings sometimes skirt the edges of similar terrain. But I'd never charge people $4 a month to read it, is the thing. I feel like an "actual" TMNT product would need to be kept to a higher standard than that, ideally. But that's me!

Otherwise, fair points, well-spoken.

Originally Posted by ZariusTwo

You write from what reality conjures up for you, which I appreciate. What's better is the world you inhabit to front your bills is complete Tex Avery to begin with, so the wackiness blends perfectly with the grounded stuff and doesn't feel unnatural or forced to meet the expectations of a franchise fanbase.

You make such sweet pillow talk, doll. But nah, thanks mate, you're a good egg. I do m'best.

[MsMarvelDuckie]

Originally Posted by PizzaPower1985

No. No. No. No. Modern mainstream comics writers have TOO BIG EGOS if they have worked for Marvel in the 21st century. Bendis is a great writer of dark, decompressed superhero storyelling (as long as it was Daredevil in the early 2000's), but his career has proven that he is too egotistical to handle something as precious as Leo, Raph, Mikey and Don... He would be a disaster for TMNT. JMS' Spider-man WAS NOT Spider-man. Peter Parker was a different character from 1962 to 2000. When JMS took over and gave us the god awful 9/11 issue and Sin's Past and the Gwen/Norman affair, he officially declared to the world that HIS Spider-man was not the same guy that fans knew and adored for 38 years. JMS could probably handle TMNT... if he reinvented them beyond all recognition.

Peter David DID work on the TMNT in the form of the 4Kids comic and he just wrote family dynamics and treated the TMNT like the Fantastic Four. Why? Because Peter David DOES NOT understand the TMNT. It was just a paycheck to him.

Marvel, back when Roy Thomas was in charge or when Archie Goodwin (RIP) was top banana... that environment... that sort of corporate atmosphere would have been a good fit for TMNT. Today? too many cooks in the corporate kitchen and a Marvel TMNT would be a cross between 2012, 2K3 and Bay TMNT... it would STILL be aimed at your kids and grandkids and their unborn unborn kids.

Leo656 I think implied it best when he suggested that Vertigo could probably handle it, but DC could not. Everytime DC gets the license to Doc Savage, The Spirit, (insert licensed character here) THESE DAYS, Batman always shows up. Hell, DC doesnt even have the license and IDW is half-ruining a great comic run by making stories about Batman and TMNT or Ghostbusters and TMNT. Because they can't resist a fan-wank. Even IDW can't help themselves.

Marvel licensed ROM Spaceknight way back in the 80's and guess what... Spidey and The Hulk showed up in his book AND he showed up in theirs. Now in our current time when those stories get reprinted ROM has to be deleted from whole stories and panels because guess who no longer has the rights to the Spaceknight.

Facts is facts and corporate culture today WILL NOT allow TMNT to be successfully adopted by DC or Marvel because fan-wanking will happen and Clark Kent will fall into a sewer and OMG. CROSSOVER... Or... Peter Parker will chase a rogue Hulk into Midtown Manhattan and Foot Ninja will be heisting a bank or something. IT JUST WON'T WORK.

EDIT: Everything in this post that was directed negatively toward DC Comics STRICTLY APPLIES TO THE MODERN ERA. It's ALL pretty much Dan DiDio's fault with the backing of Geoff Johns.

Wow, harsh, man. On all counts. You must not have read the same 9-11 book I did, because it literally brought me to tears. In the good way. As for the rest of his run, it's what got me reading Spidey in the first place, especially the arc involving his strained relationship with M-J finally being brought back together after years apart, (before the Quesada mandate to kill it) and was among some of the best Spidey stories ever. His confession to May and the Ezekiel arc were incredible. So, yes, he was a bit different, but it's because he had GROWN UP. Peter matured during that run, which I loved. He remained true to his character, but more responsible in his personal life, and much better at maintaining healthy relationships- until OMD regressed him back to mental adolescence.

Peter David's run on TMNT wasn't some of his best work, but it had potential, if they had allowed him to continue. And anyone who thinks he can't handle more serious work has never read his Sir Apropos of Nothing series. Fantasy with acerbic wit and depth, which TMNT would actually fit well with.

Bendis- I could say a lot about him, but I was thinking more of his alternate Ultimate universe stuff, where we saw some very different but interesting takes on familiar characters, who were still recognizable as Avenger, etc. So, yes, he COULD do it, just don't expect vanilla versions like we've had in cartoons.

[Leo656]

Actually, I kinda liked the first "Ultimates", come to think of it.

Everybody gets ONE. His Superman stuff mostly stinks, though. Not even, like, the way he does the character, that's actually not too bad, I think he does pretty much get how the Superman character works, it's just... Everything Else in the books isn't good. His characters' dialog is awwwwwful. He's almost as bad as Whedon. And he can script a Big Iconic Moment just fine ("Oh, look! It's Nuclear Man from 'Superman IV!' That's a thing I remember! He's never been in a comic before!"), but forget about giving those moments any context, nuance, or proper build-up ("So WHY is Nuclear Man here in this story, exactly?" "Because Bendis saw the movie once and he knows you did, too." ).

Again, that's just based on the most recent and prominent stuff I've seen from him. And to be completely fair, people tell me he's no longer as good as he was in his heyday, so don't think I'm critiquing his entire catalog, most of which I haven't read.

As for JMS, I've barely read any of his Spider-Man, so I can't speak to that. But he's another one who was terrible on Superman after a ton of hype, and his He-Man cartoons were all over the place, quality-wise. Can't give him a ringing endorsement, either, based on that. He had twelve issues and carte blanche to do a Big Iconic Superman Story and he literally made him take a long, pouty walk. That was a very interesting choice that he made. Story's awful!

They pretty much rebooted the entire DCU with the New 52 because JMS's Superman run tanked. Not entirely, but that was a big chunk of it. For all the hype on bringing him in fresh off of Spider-Man, and all the money they were paying him, they expected people to jump on that Superman run like it was cake. But it was boring, so they did not. Lots of time and money wasted. Lots of angry and annoyed readers. DC saw their entire line in the sales dumpster and hit the reset button. Nothing's been right since. Not gonna lie... I might stay sour at JMS for a good long while for his role in that, unintentional as it surely was. How do you make Superman SO BORING? Only he knows. I've read a lot of bad Superman stories but very few flat-out boring ones. I just don't think he "got" the character. And that's fine as long as you're not getting paid a million dollars to send the book in the crapper for an entire year. Sigh.

I, uh... I thought the 9/11 comic was a bit corny and overdone. ((Shrug)) Didn't quite buy Dr. Doom crying about two buildings falling down when he commits repeated acts of global terror every alternating Thursday. But I'm also a jaded Northeasterner. Most of us "Up Here" when that whole shebang went down sort'a felt like much of the tribute sort of stuff was noble, well-intentioned, but a wee bit disingenuous. But again, we're all SUPER jaded.

[PizzaPower1985]

Originally Posted by Galactus

In fact I think either company would have the clout to put some genuinely edgier stuff out there in a way that Tom Waltz and IDW can't with Nickelodeon owning them.

Is that some sort of admission that the IDW guys can't go beyond [modern] Saturday morning cartoon levels of darkness, violent, sex, death and grit? For a long time I thought IDW was actually quite mature and made for older readers then I realized that their levels of "adulting" the comics guys do is kind of reminiscent of Marvel and DC in the 80's and early 90's.

Just once I wanna see those IDW chaps write an arc that pushes Nickelodeon's buttons.

[PizzaPower1985]

Originally Posted by MsMarvelDuckie

Wow, harsh, man. On all counts. You must not have read the same 9-11 book I did, because it literally brought me to tears. In the good way. As for the rest of his run, it's what got me reading Spidey in the first place, especially the arc involving his strained relationship with M-J finally being brought back together after years apart, (before the Quesada mandate to kill it) and was among some of the best Spidey stories ever. His confession to May and the Ezekiel arc were incredible. So, yes, he was a bit different, but it's because he had GROWN UP. Peter matured during that run, which I loved. He remained true to his character, but more responsible in his personal life, and much better at maintaining healthy relationships- until OMD regressed him back to mental adolescence.

Peter David's run on TMNT wasn't some of his best work, but it had potential, if they had allowed him to continue. And anyone who thinks he can't handle more serious work has never read his Sir Apropos of Nothing series. Fantasy with acerbic wit and depth, which TMNT would actually fit well with.

Bendis- I could say a lot about him, but I was thinking more of his alternate Ultimate universe stuff, where we saw some very different but interesting takes on familiar characters, who were still recognizable as Avenger, etc. So, yes, he COULD do it, just don't expect vanilla versions like we've had in cartoons.

Hey, sorry if I stepped on your toes there. We'll just have to disagree on whether Marvel can handle our beloved green testudines. But I'm glad you can enjoy what you can enjoy. And some fair points you've made here too. Frankly, if all that stuff's for you and you dig it... great! We need more people reading and enjoying modern comics and the works of some (recently) maligned creators because unfortunately we readers are all the industry has left. It's in a sorry state of affairs and has been for decades now.

I'm SO VERY glad that we can bring discussions of the BIG 2 and other comics into this thread because... whether DC or Marvel or Image or other companies have been as good as they used to be or not, I think we can use the tone of OTHER superhero books/properties as a blueprint for a TMNT that I think original fans and older fans would like to see.

[Leo656]

Originally Posted by PizzaPower1985

testudines.

Who the f*ck talks like this?!

You're alright, You.

We need more people here who casually throw $20 words around. I dig that the most.

[Whatswiththeheadbands?]

I've always thought that Nick were the wrong company to buy the TMNT rights, although I think Disney would be equally bad.

I'm not a huge DC fan as far as the Comics go. I don't have that many and what I've read is only Batman and a few when they had The Shadow licence (currently collecting them), but I feel with the tone they lend to their shows (regardless of the quality of them) and comics, I wouldn't have minded if they acquired the rights. The TMNT and Batman crossovers prove that the characters both work well with each other in both Comic book and animated forms, and I feel that the TMNT would work well with other DC properties.

The biggest plus would be with animated shows. A DC produced TMNT show would pay equal homage to the light-hearted side and also the grittier, darker side as well. Nick seem to just focus on the lighter side and ignore all the rest almost entirely.

I feel the casual fan would be partial to blame, as they just want to see new TMNT incarnations be similar to what they grew up with, and I get that. Nostalgia is a big draw in and selling point, but Nick again fail to see that there's multiple sides the franchise, each with fans that grew up with them and are nostalgic for them.

Again, I'm not saying DC would be the only choice, and I'm not overly familiar with their comic books as a whole. Any comic book company would also mean the IDW series wouldn't exist as it does today. It would exist in a similar way, but not published by IDW and it would subject to the other companies' style and work ethic.

[Leo656]

I've heard that the first DC "Shadow" mini-series was alright, but the ongoing was awful. What's your take on it, as someone who might have an informed opinion?

[PizzaPower1985]

[CENTER][/CENTER]

Originally Posted by Leo656

Who the f*ck talks like this?!

You're alright, You.

We need more people here who casually throw $20 words around. I dig that the most.

Yeah, I like vocabulary. It comes from being a science geek and a techno-nerd. I'm a cpu technician by trade so maybe I'm a 'lil bit Donatello?

[PizzaPower1985]

Originally Posted by Leo656

I've heard that the first DC "Shadow" mini-series was alright, but the ongoing was awful. What's your take on it, as someone who might have an informed opinion?

My honest opinion? DC's Shadow comics were best in the 70's and 80's. I don't think the Dynamite Garth Ennis stuff is very good, but I loved Matt Wagner's Year One story. I was mildly intrigued when I saw the recent Batman-Shadow crossover but then read the first issue. Didn't Scott Snyder write that? Walter B. Gibson, the Shadow's creator, much like Conan-Doyle with Holmes, does not get respect when others try to write their characters. But hey, it can't get any worse than when Howard Chaykin wrote The Shadow in a pseudo future where he was a robot and carried an uzi.

If you want good Shadow stories in the comics, I recommend Denny O'neil's 70's run, collected mostly in a hardcover called The Private Files of the Shadow. Also, not collected in trade is The Shadow Strikes from the late 1980s. 31 issues and an annual full of pulpy gold.

EDIT: Special mention should go to Dark Horse Shadow comics in the 90's. 2 in particular: In the Coils of Leviathan and another called Hell's Heatwave.

[Leo656]

Oh, that's right, I'm sorry. I forgot that DC had a few runs with The Shadow. I was specifically talking about the 1980s ones. I forgot that they also had earlier runs with the character. But I'd heard the 1980s books were mixed at best. But I'd love to know what someone who actually knows about the character really thinks about it all. I've always been intrigued but know very little.

Originally Posted by PizzaPower1985

[CENTER][/CENTER]

Yeah, I like vocabulary. It comes from being a science geek and a techno-nerd. I'm a cpu technician by trade so maybe I'm a 'lil bit Donatello?

Well sir, the last time we seen such a fancy word 'round here, it was wearing spurs. That's how fancy it was.

[ZariusTwo]

Originally Posted by Leo656

As for JMS, I've barely read any of his Spider-Man, so I can't speak to that.

A lot of it is negated by One More Day, but if you want a real doozie, try out Sins Past. It was the first of the big editorial gut punches to the brand in the 2000s (little did we know what was to come), it's JMS's other biggest regret on the characters beside agreeing to write OMD for Quesada.

For anyone who hates Gwen Stacy as much as I do though, it's pretty awesome, and the ultimate zero f*ck given to how much she meant to Peter.

[Leo656]

Remind me who wrote "The Other"? Was that him?

That thing was like "Whaaaaaaat."

And was "Sins Past" the one where they said Gwen had a secret affair with Norman? See, stuff like that was what screamed at me that I was wise to drop the line in 1994 or whenever it was. Spider-Man was one of the few Marvel characters I kept up with even a little, and knew a lot of the basic lore, and then they started doing major retcons like that and I was like "Nah bruh."

And Norman being the mastermind of the Clone Saga doesn't make any sense no matter how many Secret Diaries and retcons they do. That was some oxshit.

[PizzaPower1985]

Originally Posted by Leo656

Oh, that's right, I'm sorry. I forgot that DC had a few runs with The Shadow. I was specifically talking about the 1980s ones. I forgot that they also had earlier runs with the character. But I'd heard the 1980s books were mixed at best. But I'd love to know what someone who actually knows about the character really thinks about it all. I've always been intrigued but know very little.

Yeah, some of my earliest collecting of comics was with The Shadow... The 70's Denny O'neil stuff was when DC had the license for a short time. There are 2 issues of Batman where The Shadow appeared as a background character... Bruce tells The Shadow that he was his greatest inspiration... written by Denny O'neil (it's what the BTAS Gray Ghost episode is based on.) The Shadow series itself only lasted like 11 or 12 issues. The Denny O'neil ones are the best (obviously).

MARVEL (when they were doing their line of hardcover graphic novels in the 80's) did a Marvel Graphic Novel featuring The Shadow called: The Shadow: 1941 - Hitler's Astrologer. Written again by Denny and painted by Russ Heath of war comics fame. A wonderful little book.

DC got the license again and Gerard Jones, a pop-culture history buff wrote The Shadow Strikes with Ed Barreto on art duties. Amazing stuff IF you're a fan. And probably the best Shadow comics EVER. Found mine on Ebay and had them made into 2 hardcover books.

There was the other series by Chaykin and Andy Helfer that was set in modern day and the future... awful. Just awful. Some of that may have been collected.

The 90's is where The Shadow was picked up by Dark Horse and was handled pretty well. Today, I think it's just a matter of The Shadow not getting the best writers.

[ZariusTwo]

Originally Posted by Leo656

Remind me who wrote "The Other"? Was that him?

Him and Peter David too (yeah, we're back to him again already)

And Norman being the mastermind of the Clone Saga doesn't make any sense no matter how many Secret Diaries and retcons they do. That was some oxshit.

I remember being more gutted they lost the baby in that one. I know Peter's kids have had it good in other books (Spider-Girl and Renew Your Vows), but stepping back and revealing Norman also kidnapped Aunt May and kept her in a hunting lodge for a year while some genetic double died in her place, as opposed to just kidnapping the baby and raising it to hate Peter or something, convinced me this franchise was creatively bankrupt. The Clone Saga didn't even convince me of that, I loved that s*it. Judas Traveller represent dawg!

JMS got it kicking a bit again, and then it died for ten years courtesy of Dan Slott and his pals who did nothing at the company but fail upwards. Now Nick Spencer's resuscitating it a bit, redeeming himself somewhat for Nazi Cap, but he'd better stick the landing on this Kindred mystery. A lot of the good will currently comes from fans expecting him to restore the marriage by the end of the run.