Can the Turtles even work as protagonists in their movie?

[saul]

Think about it. In the 1st movie, April was the protagonist. It was really HER story and how she met the Turtles.

In the sequels, the Turtles became the main characters and the quality declined, in terms of ratings and revenue.

Many studios and film theorists believe there needs to be a grounding character that the audience can relate to, that pulls them into the world. This approach worked for Transformers, at least financially.

But the point is, how many movies feature out-of-this-world characters as the main heroes?

[ToTheNines]

This approach worked for Transformers, at least financially.

Transformers worked because it has spectacularly rendered CGI robots beating the ish out of each other, some skeezer everyone thought was hot, and trendy music.

[Andrew NDB]

Think about it. In the 1st movie, April was the protagonist. It was really HER story and how she met the Turtles.

There could be an argument made for it being Danny's movie.

Ugh.

[ToTheNines]

There could be an argument made for it being Danny's movie.

Ugh.

It's just Dan, now.



:P

[Bob]

The first film was definitely told through April’s eyes. Like Sam in the Transformers films, she basically played the role of the “audience”. We were seeing all these amazing things and meeting all these outlandish characters through her eyes, a fellow human being, which overall helped keep the film grounded. A lot of people mention how the first film feels so real and grounded, but they never mention why. That’s one of the main reasons, right there.

[Andrew NDB]

The first film was definitely told through April’s eyes. Like Sam in the Transformers films, she basically played the role of the “audience”. We were seeing all these amazing things and meeting all these outlandish characters through her eyes, a fellow human being, which overall helped keep the film grounded. A lot of people mention how the first film feels so real and grounded, but they never mention why. That’s one of the main reasons, right there.

I'd actually tend to go more with, "It's the only Turtle movie filmed without a completely ghastly, horrific script."

[FoxZerro]

I'd actually tend to go more with, "It's the only Turtle movie filmed without a completely ghastly, horrific script."

Seconded it. It was grounded because the script was grounded in reality. Not because we had April or Danny or Casey to represent the human element. That movie is good because it took the most realistic parts of the Turtle Continuity up to that point and put them together on film.

[plasticturtle]

I'm wierd. I tend to identify MORE with nonhuman characters than I do human ones. I've been like that ever since I can remember. I don't need a human viewpoint character in these types of things though I recognize that they're probably neccessary for mainstream audiences.

[sgtfbomb]

Transformers worked because it has spectacularly rendered CGI robots beating the ish out of each other, some skeezer everyone thought was hot, and trendy music.

I'd make the argument that in the Transformers films, the title characters were barely discernible from one another. With the exception of Optimus Prime, Bumblebee, and Megatron, none of the other characters really stood out from one another, especially when they were fighting one another. Besides those three exceptions, I didn't really know who was who (in the sequels..the first film was better with that), and if it weren't for the fact that the Decepticons look like robots from hell, I might not have been able to tell which ones were the good guys and which ones were the bad guys. Thank god for that!

[d_osborn]

if a professional screenwriter can't make the TMNT work as protagonists in a story, then he/she shouldn't be a professional screenwriter. it's called creativity, and they're paid a LOT to be good at it.

[Original TMNT Cartoon Fan]

In the sequels, the Turtles became the main characters and the quality declined, in terms of ratings and revenue.



It wasn't because of that, but because of those who already knew about Mirage liked the first one better, as it was dark. As kids, most of us adored the change from TMNT I to TMNT II, as the second one was more like the 1987 show and Archie, the only other TMNT versions we knew.

[saul]

It wasn't because of that, but because of those who already knew about Mirage liked the first one better, as it was dark. As kids, most of us adored the change from TMNT I to TMNT II, as the second one was more like the 1987 show and Archie, the only other TMNT versions we knew.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. So you're saying there are more Mirage fans than Fred Wolf fans, and that's why movie 1 was more successful?

Also:
In movie 2 the Turtles lacked a clear goal and motivation. They were just bumming around April's behaving reactionary, which is not how a strong interesting protagonist should behave. I really liked the "ooze" angle-- how they were going to discover some deeper meaning and purpose about themselves-- but that was quickly dropped after the new mutants appeared. I mean, why weren't they even amazed to see new mutants? They live their whole life thinking they are alone and outcasts, and then they finally see other mutants and all they can say is some dumb wrestling joke.

If anything, Shredder was the protagonist in movie 2, as he was the only one with a character arc and clear goals and strong motivation.

In Movie 3 the Turtles seemed to learn nothing from their journey/experience. The set-up was Raph complaining about them not being appreciated in New York. The ending is them in the same exact situation.

Movie 4 was about Raph, his struggles and how he learns to get along with his brothers again. But the problem with having one turtle be the focus is that the others are neglected and sidelined in the story. It could be argued that Raph was the protagonist and Leo the antagonist.

[Logan]

I was under the impression that Raph was sort of the protagonist. April is just something of a plot device to provide exposition. That's not a slight against the character, she's played well and is interesting in herself.

[pannoni1]

It obviously depends what the plot is about. If it's about ninjas/martial arts training, then Leonardo would work the best. If it's about gangs and has a darker tone, then Raphael drives home the script. If it involves lots of technology/science, then it's for Donatello. If it is a clever but comedic movie with lots of laughs, than its Michelangelo's. But all must work together as protagonists in order to defeat the bad goons since Splinter is usually just a "den father" and other allies generally just support and assist the protagonist.

[Nelson]

Which movies have non-human characters as the protagonists? The only ones that come to mind are The Dark Crystal and Transformers: the (animated) movie. Both were flops if I'm not mistaken.

X-Men and the like don't count because their main characters are not covered in makeup and look pretty much human.

[Bob]

Which movies have non-human characters as the protagonists? The only ones that come to mind are The Dark Crystal and Transformers: the (animated) movie. Both were flops if I'm not mistaken.

X-Men and the like don't count because their main characters are not covered in makeup and look pretty much human.

If we're talking live-action, The Dark Crystal would be one. Don't laugh, but the Alvin and the Chipmunks films and the Smurf movie count, too. Also, Rise of the Planet of the Apes is the most high profile example I can think of, particularly the second half of the film.